STUDENTSTUDENT DRDROP OUTSOP OUTS AT CAT … · 2019-03-14 · Library of Catalunya (Biblioteca de...

STUDENTSTUDENTDRDROP OUTSOP OUTSAAT CAT CATTALALANANUNIVERSITIESUNIVERSITIES

| Fax: +34 93 268 89 51

w

STUDENTDROP OUTSAT CATALANUNIVERSITIES

AQU CATALUNYA, 2010

Library of Catalunya (Biblioteca de Catalunya). CIP data:

Student drop outs at Catalan universitiesBibliografiaISBN 9788469305256I. Gairín Sallán, Joaquín, ed.II. Figuera Gazo, Pilar, ed.III. Triadó i Ivern, Xavier M., ed.IV. Agència per a la Qualitat del Sistema Universitari de Catalunya1. Abandó dels estudis (Ensenyament universitari) – Catalunya378(467.1)

© Agència per a la Qualitat del Sistema Universitari de CatalunyaVia Laietana, 28, 5th floor08003 Barcelona

© Authors: Joaquín Gairín (coordinator), Organizational Development Team (Grup de Recerca Equip deDesenvolupament Organitzacional [EDO]) of the UAB; Pilar Figuera (coordinator), Research Group onOccupational and Academic transitions (Grup de Recerca Transicions Acadèmiques i Laborals [TRALS]) of theUB; Xavier M. Triadó (coordinator), Research Group on Business Management (Grup de Recerca enOrganització d’Empreses [GROE]) and Group of Educational Innovation Consolidated in Business Management(Grup d’Innovació Docent Consolidat en Organització d’Empreses [GIDCOE]) of the UB; Monica Feixas, teamEDO of the UAB; David Rodríguez, team EDO of the UAB; José Luis Muñoz, team EDO of the UAB; MaritaNavarro, team EDO of the UAB; Isabel del Arco, team EDO of the UdL; Miguel Valero, Higher Technical Schoolof Castelldefels of the UPC; Pilar Aparicio, teams GROE and GIDCOE of the UB; Màrius Domínguez, Faculty ofEconomics and Business of the UB; Immaculada Dorio, team TRALS of the UB; Montserrat Freixa, teamTRALS of the UB; Natalia Jaría, teams GROE and GIDCOE of the UB; Ernest Pons, team GIDCOE of the UB; M. Luisa Rodríguez, team TRALS of the UB and Mercè Torrado, team TRALS of the UB.

Edited by: Josep Turon and Sasha Cristòfol

First edited: march 2010ISBN: 978-84-693-0525-6Legal number: B-5.086-2010

The contents of the study are the responsibility of the authors. Authorisation is hereby given for their total or partialreproduction, provided the source and the authors are cited.

Online version available at:<www.aqu.cat>

> 3

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 5

1. EXPLANATORY MODELS AND FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH THE UNIVERSITY DROP OUT ...................................................................................... 9

Introduction .................................................................................................................... 9Terminology and definitions of university drop-outs ........................................................ 10University drop out explanatory models ......................................................................... 14Factors associated with university drop out ................................................................... 20

2. NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL OUTLOOK OF THE UNIVERSITY DROP OUT ...................................................................................................................31

Introduction .................................................................................................................. 31Measurement of the university drop out.......................................................................... 31Access, participation and progression in university education ......................................... 34The university studies drop out on the American continent ............................................. 38University drop out on the European continent ............................................................... 43University studies drop outs in Spain.............................................................................. 49

3. ANALYSIS OF THE DROP OUT PHENOMENON IN CATALONIA .............................. 53

Introduction .................................................................................................................. 53Database presentation .................................................................................................. 54Macro scale analysis: reality of a problem....................................................................... 56Micro scale analysis ...................................................................................................... 60Drop out rates in study programs .................................................................................. 65Post drop out situation ................................................................................................. 72In synthesis .................................................................................................................. 78

4. THE SEARCH FOR AN EXPLANATION: DESCRIPTIVE RESEARCH ON THE DROP-OUTS IN CATALAN UNIVERSITIES .................................................. 83

Introduction .................................................................................................................. 83Descriptive and integral research………………………………………………………………….......... 83Field study results ......................................................................................................... 91Research conclusions and methodological limitations .................................................. 106As a synthesis ............................................................................................................. 107

SUMMARY

4 <

5. RETENTION STRATEGIES ........................................................................................ 111

Introduction ................................................................................................................ 111Typology of retention strategies ................................................................................... 111Some retention strategies in context ............................................................................ 115

GENERAL CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE CHALLENGES ...............................................127

BIBLIOGRAPHY................................................................................................................137

APPENDIX ........................................................................................................................147

Appendix 1: Survey to evaluate the university students who dropped out their studies .................................................................................................................147

Appendix 2: In depth interview protocol ........................................................................155

> 5

The explanation that precedes a contribution is usually identified with the introduction or withinthe presentation itself. In our case, we use this space to present the reference context and theproblem that is being exposed, as well as the contents and the research members/staff involvedin this study.

We don’t contribute if we just highlight the dynamic character of the current reality. Societieshave become more open and participative, the economic system has been internationalized andthe cultural diversity leads us to debate what is our own and what is foreign. But, maybe, what ismost significant is the rapid speed at which changes occur and the unpredictability of the future,related directly to the abundant and increasingly scientific and technological developments.

At the same time, the unilateral planning of our relationship with nature, the deficient functioningof generation changeover, the alteration of the demographic pyramid and the exclusion processeswhich generate socioeconomic development and the knowledge society are current challengesthat we face. Although inequality and conflict are almost permanent identifiers of our society, wecan not allow then to create deep social fractures, nor to erode cohesion and social equality. Wewant these values to slowly constitute the values of the citizenship bound to our society.

The future society will be a cognitive society and, in this context, the positioning of each person toknowledge and competence will be decisive. Thus education plays a key role and a strategicelement in the development of the knowledge and information society. Human capital assets andeducation will be essential if they know how to use individual capacities in order to make thecreation, the transmission and the application of knowledge the raw material and the most valuedmaterial.

It is not unusual that in these circumstances a more extensive education is promoted, systems ofevaluation are developed on achievement, and long-life learning is generalized and citizens changetheir aspirations and expectations in regard to the educational system.

The new perspectives also change the orientation and the direction of education and theinstitutions that organize it. At present, the educational system responds to a very limited visionof education, since the educational responsibility of individuals is only bound to a formal educationand to institutions within the educational system i.e. elementary schools, high schools, universities,etc. Education is not understood as a responsibility that has to be shared by the whole of oursociety, but as the responsibility that educational systems and the professionals who work theremust assume.

INTRODUCTION

STUDENT DROP OUTS AT CATALAN UNIVERSITIES

6 <

In order to be able to satisfy, however, the educational needs of the population and face thechallenges that stem from the new social, economic, political and cultural scene, it is necessaryto broaden the educational concept and to accept that this is responsibility of the whole of societywhich requires a shared commitment of society and the community to which the system is a part,so that not only what we teach is revised, but also how it is taught, where it is taught and to whatend it is taught.

In the university field, factors appear that accelerate this change: the access of a greaterpercentage of the population to this educational stage, quality as a reference factor, changes inthe organization and in the conception of higher education promoted by the Bologna Declaration,and, finally, the transformations that the knowledge society is generating in the environment andin professional training.

These new demands are translated into changes that affect educational organization as well asorientation. Thus, learning is considered the core of professional training, the curriculum isunderstood as instrumental in response to the needs of the society and students, and the teachingstaff is called to work in team, while, at the same time, we speak of new moral borders and of newways of global culture.

The dilemma posed is not separate from the content of the debates that for some time hasaccompanied meetings between universities: academic or professional orientation, elite orovercrowded university, only formative or social orientation, etc. However, the confusion that stillsurrounds some of these questions and the lack of commitment to some assigned functions tothe university (to contribute to preserving, interpreting and fostering the contextual cultures, forexample) allow us to speak more about «discourse» rather than about «reality».

The problems, in reality, are not only conceptual but also operative and are related to a large extentto the internal transformation of the universities (the increase in the number of universities as wellas increase in the number of degrees, the introduction of elective and the free elective subjects,the intensifying of research etc.), the inflexibility of their organizational structures, the inadequacyof their answers to the current and future demands of society and the adaptation to a newEuropean reality.

As a matter of fact, we can distinguish important transformations if we consider, for example, theextension of the program contracts among the Administration and the university, the launch ofagreements with institutions and companies, research promotion, educational qualityimprovement, implementation of quality systems, development of the virtual campuses orprograms directed to the orientation and the attention of students.

Along this line, the increasing interest of the universities in receiving, orientating and attending totheir students is a reality in order to facilitate the transition from high school and provide orientationand guidance to students while they study, as well as to provide support in the transition to the

INTRODUCTION

> 7

working world. All these actions reinforce the focus on the student and on the learning process,which are necessary to promote as engines of university activity.

To achieve transition and adaptation to the university, especially in the first years, when droppingout is more likely to occur, a gradual process without trauma has positive effects on studentattitudes, on their academic performance and on their socialization process, and, at the sametime, can help to avoid the putting off of an academic course of studies which is not desirable andwhich institutional evaluation processes try to help minimize.

This study, in particular, approaches the analysis of the student drop out rate at public universitiesin Catalonia, especially those that initiated their studies in 2000-2001 and 2001-2002. Beyond thenovelty of this phenomenon and of the meaning that can be given to the drop out rate and to theways of measuring it, there are many questions which must be answered: What do we really knowabout what is going on in the university?; Who it involves and Why it persists?; What is thedifference between the student who finishes and the one that gives up their studies?; Whathappens to the students once they have registered?; What causes students to drop out?; Whichof these causes or factors are universities responsible for?; How can drop outs be measured? Weknow that university education has a high rate of drop outs throughout the Spanish universitysystem, as is reflected in the chapters in this document; that the drop outs make up part of theinvisible selection process that university carries out on students, and that this problem can besolved.

School failure and the fact of «dropping out» from a course of studies have been taken intoconsideration from a scientific viewpoint in primary and secondary education before becoming aworry at the university level. Numerous studies by pedagogues and other educational sociologistshave already focused on the dividing up of classes, re-orientation in the areas of specialization,support to students with learning or behavioral difficulties, or the lack of education. These concernshave later reached university education, but it remains to be seen whether it is possible to helpstudents to overcome the difficulties and that, therefore, we can be intervene to prevent studentsdropping out.

To take action, we require knowledge of this phenomenon, its causes and its consequences, inboth the personal as well as the institutional, social or economic arena. The effects are so importantthat they can not nor must be ignored.

Integration and inclusion within the university must assume the logical continuity of an optimumprocess of transition whereby the student discovers the new culture of the receiving center,becomes interested in and assumes in a progressive way the renouncing of rules, models andhabits of the previous educational center. Conflictive feelings that turn up in the transition aresoftened with the acquisition of new and positive experiences that allow the student to renew andto improve his future expectations. In this way, it will be guaranteed that the changes are easilyassumed and that they have a positive effect on the student’s personality and on his ownimplication in his/her studies.


8 <

This study focuses on the aforementioned problematic issues of combining theoretical reviewwith field research while, at the same time, it provides references, strategies and tools forintervention. The study deals with the subject of the university drop out, which, in spite of not beinga new problem, takes on greater dimensions when extended to the access to university studies.Behind this problem there is the economic cost of university available to a majority and the deficientuse of resources, as well as the problems of discourage of those who wanted to be educated butdid not see their expectations satisfied, or of those that have not been properly orientated or re-orientated towards professional training to which they could aspire to obtain.

The importance of this document it is not so much to identify the problem of dropping out withmore clarity but to suggest some actions and to listen to the opinions of those that are part of thisphenomenon. Therefore, several proposals are presented and are directed to the main participantsin the educational processes, whether they be those responsible for the system, for the universitiesor for the centers. It also addresses teachers to make them aware that they can be a part of thesolution.

This study is the result of the collaboration of three research teams, the components of which havebeen interrelated on the assumption of shared responsibilities: the Organizational DevelopmentTeam (EDO) of the Autonomous University of Barcelona (UAB); Research Group of Academic andWork Transitions (TRALS) and the Research Group of Educational Innovation in Organization ofCompanies (GROE) of the University of Barcelona (UB). The research teams are responsible forwriting up the first drafts of the different chapters, which have served as the basis for debate amongthe whole group.

We consider the study, in short, an initial approach to the drop out of the university students, inwhich we attempt to open a space for reflection and action, if we think it can be a means topromote change in the university programs as well as in student orientation and supportmechanisms. For this purpose, we have undertaken this study and we welcome any suggestionsand constructive criticism you may have.

> 9

1. EXPLANATORY MODELS AND FACTORSASSOCIATED WITH THE UNIVERSITY

DROP OUT*

INTRODUCTIONThe university drop out problem is not new. However, at present, when the University must yieldand give explanations for their actions to society as a public service, the phenomenon of universitydrop out must be reduced in order to increase the productivity of the institution. Ever since thenineties, the drop out rate has been quantified and used as an indicator of performance. The Bricalland Dearing report on the Spanish, British and French educational systems brought this issue tolight in the nineties on the efficacy and the efficiency of the university system, which reaffirmed theconclusions of the first seminar dealing in the demand and recruitment of students at universities(Rauret i Grifoll, 2001). This issue has also been discussed at several meetings of academicauthorities of the European Union, and has grown with the adaptation to the European HigherEducation Area (EHEA).

The most current data on the situation in Catalonia indicates these same problems: «The incidenceof drop out is one of the problems that generates more concerns within the EHEA. Undoubtedly,it is an efficiency of the systems to maximize the development of the human capital of a country».1

According to the data from this report, the drop out rate for the two courses between 2000 and2002 stands at 30%, which gives a precise idea as to the dimension of the problem that is theobject of this study.

University drop out is a serious subject that worries the majority of European universities fromwhich have emerged and are emerging research groups focused on studying this phenomenonfrom different perspectives which aim to describe and identify the causes as well as to analyze theconsequences. These institutional research groups are varied and governed by differentobjectives, however, in general, they seek to influence the concepts of academic failure or success.They stem from complementary disciplines, like the economy of education, which attempts toexplain how the individual and collective decisions intervene in the university drop out

* The authors of the final version of the chapter have been: Mercè Torrado, M. Luisa Rodríguez, Montserrat Freixa,Immaculada Dorio and Pilar Figuera.

1 Report El sistema universitari públic català 2000-2005, published byAQU Catalunya.


10 <

phenomenon; the pedagogy, which studies the relations between the knowledge, the causes andthe consequences of school failure; and, finally, sociology, which tries to synthesize what a persondecides individually with respect to the macrosocial tendency of the knowledge society.

Why do certain students drop out of university? Is there a profile on students who are more likelyto drop out? Which are the factors and the variables that intervene in dropping out? Can anexplanatory model of this phenomenon which integrates the different factors and variables befound? These are some of the questions that the different research groups try to answer from theirdisciplinary and inter-disciplinary perspectives.

This chapter has a further purpose: the recognition of the different factors and variables thatintervene in the university drop out rate. In order to accomplish this objective, we first present theterminology and the more common definitions employed in defining the university drop out rateand secondly, a revision of the main explanatory models. Next, we describe and identify the factorsassociated with dropping out that stem from the integrated explanatory models and that constituteindicators that must be taken into account when making institutional action proposals to increasestudent perseverance.

TERMINOLOGY AND DEFINITIONS OF UNIVERSITY DROP-OUTSAny bibliographical revision shows a huge variation in terminology which hampers the definitionof the descriptors that must be used in a research project. The use of one term or another dependssubstantially on the context of where the research takes place and of the objectives that aredevised from the beginning. It also depends on whether dropping out is to be considered a failureor not, as well as on the transition model in which the process is framed from when a studentleaves high school to go to university.

Terminology

The sociologist B. Longden (2001) synthesized some years ago all the terminological casuistry ina type of classification and added his opinion to it. The lack of a terminological unification hashampered the comparative studies among the results of different research.

Of all the terms in use, the most common in the Anglo-Saxon literature are drop out, attrition andwithdrawal, of which in the Catalan context are referred to as abandó or abandonament and whichare used indistinctly. Added to this terminology, Bourdages (1996) brings a new idea in pointingout that it would be more interesting to approach why one persists in an academic project asopposed to investigating why drop outs occur. Thus, this author promotes the introduction of theterm persistence and, consequently, of the term non-persistence. In this sense, we must take intoaccount that the persistence and academic success correlate mutually, but that, however, they

EXPLANATORY MODELS AND FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH THE UNIVERSITY DROP-OUT

> 11

are very different and they are not the cause or consequence of one or the other. Persistence refersto student registration over a period of time, which can be continuous or not, or that it can resultin the obtaining or not obtaining a university degree. However, academic success refers to a moreextensive concept that brings different value to several forms of persistence.

The studies on drop outs or non persistence at university are many times related to the study ofacademic performance and, more precisely, with academic failure at university. Latiesa (1992)differentiates among the performance in the broad sense, as for example, the study of the success,delay and desertion, and performance in the strict sense of the word, such as the study of gradesor internal performance (Escudero, 1999). In the university context, however, the study of academicperformance is imprecise if it is only associated with qualifications, since performance is alsoconsidered success in the achievement of personal and professional goals.

The drop out study hides very diverse situations that are not necessarily associated to universityfailure. The utilization of the terms academic failure and drop out or desertion as synonymous isbeing substituted for a terminology that gives room to the several types of drop outs. Thus, peoplespeak about non-persistence in opposite sense to the retention or continuation of the studies.

There are glossaries and dictionaries to clarify this terminology, in which words are defined suchas desertion, retention and others that will be useful when analyzing the data obtained throughsurveys and interviews (National School of Library and Archive Sciences, 2004).

Definitions

The dictionaries say: a student that drops out is one that does not graduate, the one who leavesthe school or the university without obtaining a degree, a non conventional person who choosesto live a different lifestyle; most of the time it refers to a student who leaves education beforegraduating or getting a degree. We then assume that the issues on definition can be purelytechnical. For example: Can it be said that a person has started a course if he has simplypreregistered or registered?; Can it be said that a student is «active» if he is registered when thecourse starts, or if he turns in his first assignment?; Is a student considered a drop out if he doesnot turn in an assigment, or if he has not attended classes, or that he does not show up for anexamination, or that he has failed in an evaluation?

Taking into account these ambiguous situations, it is logical to accept that the problems ofdefinition can be avoided by accurately determining the contents, on the one hand, anddifferentiating situations or typology, on the other.

Thus, according to the contents, the ANUIES (National Association of Universities and HigherEducation Institutions) (1986) describes dropping out as not attending class and the non-fulfillmentof the obligations in such a way as to affect the final efficiency of the whole of tasks of the university


12 <

career. It can also be considered that a student does not drop out if he studies a degree programmat least during a period of two to three years. Thus, the drop out rate could be defined as thepercentage of a determinated group that has not achieved the degree at least in a determinateperiod long enough (about two or three years, whether if it is degree or a master’s degree).

However, research demonstrates that there are problems with students that, even though theydo not drop out, they repeat courses, they change institution to enroll in the same career and thelike. Therefore, the accurate definition of the content does not include the whole, since it does notdifferentiate the situations. Facing this fact, we use definitions that define differnt types of dropouts.

Thus, Salvador and García-Valcárcel (1989) describe the student that drops out as one whodisappears from the university panorama, differentiating him from the ones who decide to changetheir degree or university. García Areito (1986, 1991) gives three types of definitions: for drop outwithout starting (non-starters), related to those who have never been examined in spite of beingenrolled during one or two years; real drop out, referring to students who are examined beforeleaving the degree, and global drop out, which is the combination of the two aforementionedconcepts. Tinto (1975) defines more drastically the drop out as the flow of students that definitelydesert all modalities of university education, and, also, as the moment in which the students carryout an immediate transfer to another institution of university education. Altamira (1997, page 35)describes the desertion from four points of view: voluntary and definite drop out, by expulsion dueto academic deficiency, for change of degree and for disciplinary expulsion.

Therefore, when investigating, it is necessary to keep in mind the different type of drop outs ―voluntary, involuntary, temporary, permanent, initial, provisional, definite, etc.― and the possiblerelationship (or not) between dropping out and academic failure. It is also necessary to take intoaccount more concrete casuistry, like enrolling in a degree and not sitting examinations whichshows another type of drop out that Himmel (2002) names «premature baby» or that Giovagnoli(2002) qualifies as «epidemic» on referring to those «absent» students that do not obtain thenecessary credits to continue studying simply because they have stopped going to university.

The definition of university drop out is not, however, completely outlined, since, as we have justseen, the student who changes university but continues doing the same degree does not representthe same situation (he gives up the university but not the system) than the one that leaves theuniversity studies (he gives up the system). Besides, it will be necessary to define the period ofabsence in order to be able to consider that a student really drops-out of university.


> 13

Operative definitions

The operative definitions of the university drop outs are associated with the performance indicatorsthat have been used since the nineties in the evaluation processes of the quality of universities(MEC (Ministry of Education): Catalogue of Indicators in the Spanish Public University System).These have also been used as indicators in the rankings of institutions of university education(Yorke, 1998). These indicators have evolved in parallel to the technological development of theuniversities to gather and to systematize a whole series of information into their data bases. Thus,people have gone from the simple counting of non-enrolled students to the differentiation of typesof drop outs by year and by their compulsory or voluntary character.

In year 1996, the Universities Council described the drop out rate as the number of students whohave not finished their degree nor are enrolled over the total of new students in an academic year.Later, and in accordance with the National Plan of degree evaluation, two types of drop outs wereidentified according to the year: rate of drop out in the first year and rate of drop out in the secondyear. At present, we have gone beyond that point and in the data that must be presented toevaluate degrees and further specify voluntary drop outs and expulsions. Thus, university dropouts are classified into:

n Those who come back to the same degree and centre (they change university) in the

public system.

n Those who redistribute themselves among other centers (they change degree).

n Those who leave the degree or the university system.

The diversity of reference contexts where the university drop out can occur and the constantevolution in the study and in the operating definitions of this phenomenon, makes it necessary tocarry out an accurate contextualization of the institutional organization of the study plan ofreference in order for a suitable interpretation of the associated performance indicator. Thecomparisons of the drop out rates are harder without some common parameters. The study ofYorke and Longden (2004) brings the complexity of the indicator to light and proposes a rationaland contextual use.

Using as a reference the different existing typologies of university drop outs, this work chooses tostudy the desertion or non-persistence in relation to the degree or to the institution anddifferentiating between career drop out and institution drop out. Likewise, the classification thatis proposed in picture 1 identifies typologies of non-persistence according to the type of desertion,the moment in which the drop out decision takes place and the action that is made posterior tothe decision to not continue the started degree: leaving the university definitively or changinguniversity, of studies or of both things.


14 <

PICTURE 1 STUDENT’S SITUATION AFTER DROPPING-OUT OF THE UNIVERSITY STUDIES

UNIVERSITY DROP OUT EXPLANATORY MODELSUniversity drop outs appear as an object of study in the sixties, and by the seventies a theoreticalbody can be referred to the interactionist theory of Vicent Tinto (Berger and Lyon, 2005). Sincethen, the major part of literature on university studies continuity is developed based on two models:the Student Integration Model by Spady (1970) and Tinto (1975), and the Student Attrition Modelby Bean (1980). Tinto’s model has evolved over time and it has promoted the development of animportant part of the latter theoretical models which attempt to comprehend a clearly complexand multidimensional phenomenon.

Among the classification models, those of the following authors stand out:

1. The classification by Braxton, Johnson and Shaw-Sullivan (1997), revised by Himmel (2002)and, recently, by Donoso and Schiefelbein (2007).

2. The classification by Cabrera and others (2006).

3. The classification by Nathaniel (2006).

DROP-OUT OR DESERTION according to:

n How the drop out occurs:

- Involuntary or normative (when the student does not achieve the necessary credits to continue)- Voluntary ( when the student drops-out of the degree by his own decision having passed the credits or before examination)

n Drop out period:

- First year- Second year

n Posterior drop out situation:

- Definitive- University transfer- Degree transfer- Degree and university transfer


> 15

The following table illustrates the coincident and divergent elements of the three classifications ofthe explanatory models of the university drop out phenomenon.

TABLE 1 CONVERGENT AND DIVERGENT ELEMENTS OF THREE DROP OUT MODEL CLASSIFICATIONS

The most relevant and most common classification from the three above mentioned has been theone by Braxton et al. (1997), although the contribution by Cabrera et al. (2006) regarding theincorporation of psyco-pedagogical models is quite interesting and comprises aspects thatnormally have not been taken into account in the theoretical models.

Models Definitions Braxton Cabrera Nathanielet al. et al.

Psychological Focuses on the personal characteristics X Xof students (personality, motivation, maturity, personal development...).

Sociologic Describes the external characteristics of X Xstudents (race, prestige of the university...).

Economic Is based on in cost-benefit that the student X X Xassumes for his studies.

Organizational Focuses on the institution (resources, X X Xservices, structure...).

Psycho-pedagogical The drop out is considered from a global Xperspective and with psycho-pedagogical dimensions (learning styles, teaching staff quality...).

Others ADAPTATION: focuses on the integration Xor social and academic adaptation of the student.

STRUCTURE: focuses on the contradiction of the different subsystems (political, economic and social).


16 <

According to the classification proposal by Braxton et al. (1997), the non-persistence analysisapproaches can be grouped into five large categories according to the explanatory variables ofthe phenomenon, whether they are individual, institutional or stem from the family environment.The approaches can be:

1. Explanatory models from the psychological perspective.

2. Explanatory models from the sociological perspective.

3. Explanatory models from the economic perspective.

4. Explanatory models from the organization perspective.

5. Integrating explanatory models.

Explanatory models from a psychological perspective

These models focus the drop out study on the student’s personal characteristics. They are basedon the fact that the actions and the behaviors of a person are explained by their beliefs, attitudesand prior behavior. Thus, the fact of not continuing the studies is just a change or a weakness oftheir initial intentions, while persistence is the strengthening of these intentions (Attinasi, 1986).These approaches can explain how the voluntary drop out is a product of the perceptions and theanalysis that students make of their university life. The first model eminently psychological is theone by Fishbein and Ajzen (1975), that demonstrates that the decision to desert or to continue thestudies is influenced by psychological factors that generate an «intentional conduct» leading to adefined behavior. In the same way, Attinasi (1986) incorporates into this model the reflection abouthow the analysis of the experience lived after the entry to the university can influence the decisionto continue or drop out of studies already begun.

Ethington (1990) incorporated to the psychological approach the «achievement conduct», whichadds perseverance, perception of difficulties, personal aims, success expectations, difficulty ofthe study program, student’s self-image and aspirations level to profile personal features of thedrop out. The achievements theory demonstrated that the level of aspirations had a direct effecton values and that expectations of success could be explained by the student’s self-image andthe perception of the degree of difficulty of the studies.

Explanatory models from a sociological perspective

Sociological models base themselves on the influence of external factors to the subject, togetherwith psychological features. Spady (1970) is the first to attempt to explain the university drop outfrom the theory of the Durkheim suicide or the fact that the student leaves the university contextbecause of the impossibility of socially integrating himself, a situation influenced by the familysupport environment. The more isolated a person is in the society that surrounds him, the greaterthe probability he has of committing suicide. On transferring this crude reality to the academicsphere, several diverse concepts can be involved in the drop out attitude: the lack of regulations,


> 17

the practice of too differentiated values from those of the conventional group, the difficulty toaffiliate or integrate into the structures, etc, always combining the social and academic systems,which are inseparable in the case of the university studies. In the figure of the model of Spady wecan observe how the family environment has a direct influence on the academic performance andon social integration, and on how social integration affects the student’s satisfaction wherebystrengthening or weakening the institutional commitment.

Explanatory models from an economic perspective

Economic models are based on the cost-benefit relation and on focalization. The first model ofthis cost-benefit approach with respect to the university drop out is when the student perceivesthe external benefits from university (work, social progress, etc). The drop out decision is producedwhen the student associates these benefits with the perception of his capacity or incapacity tostudy (Becker, 1964).

From this perspective, attention is focused on the academic situations of collectives with reallimitations (economic problems, minorities, older students, etc), which are explained by thisapproach. In this line, the demographic and academic variables are included in the analysis,although only as a way of controlling variation sources that the direct effects could hide onstudents’ retention. However, as John, Goatherd, Nora and Asker (2000) propose, progress fromthis approach happens in the incorporation of the cost-benefit in the organizational theory and theinteraction theory between the student and the institution.

Explanatory models from an organizational perspective

In the organizacional models, we find an attempt by research to explain the university drop outfrom the same institution, and so the student aid mechanisms, the teaching and the classroomare considered (Braxton, Bray, Berger, 2000). These models incorporate variables related to theteaching quality, classroom experience and the resource availability, as well as the indicators suchas the number of students to each teacher.

Integrating explanatory models

The integrating models demonstrate that, in the line of integration and adaptation of the studentto the institution, the interrelation between the adaptation capacity of the student to the universitycontext and the capacity of the university institutions to give support to students —with an explicitcommitment and with concrete actions to make it effective — the demands of academic and sociallife is key to the persistence explanation. The author that has more influence in relation to thetheoretical and explanatory models of the drop out phenomenon is Vicent Tinto, who has beenthe obligatory theoretical reference in the analysis of non-persistence from the publication of «Dropout in higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research» in the magazine Review ofEducational Research of 1975.


18 <

FIGURE 1 DROP OUT MODEL PROPOSED BY TINTO (1975)

Attributesprior to entry

Goals andcommitments

Institutionalexperiences

Personal /normativeintegration

Goals andcommitments Results

Skills

Institutionalgoals and

commitments

Institutionalgoals and

commitments

Familybackground

Intentions

Interactionwith

Professors

Academicintegration

Intentions

Exit decisions

Previouseducation

Socialintegration

Externalcommitments

Academicperformance

EDUCATION SYSTEM

SOCIAL SYSTEM

Formal

Informal

Same group intereactions

ExtracurricularActivities

Formal

Informal

The Tinto model is based on the fact that the academic and social integration explains permanencein the educational system. This academic and social integration is influenced, on the one hand,by the student’s cultural knowledge on entry from previous academic antecedents, familyenvironment and personal characteristics, and, of the other hand, by the initial commitment to theinstitution and the intention of finishing the studies, as well as for positive interactions with theenvironment (participation in extracurricular activities). Tinto is the first author that insists on severaldrop out typology: the voluntary and the involuntary or normative drop out.


> 19

Pascarella and Terenzini (1991), in an attempt to broaden the Tinto model, take into considerationthe factors that directly or indirectly influence student’s academic performance and the institution’scharacteristics as a context in which the student is enrolled. Posterior studies have demonstratedthat these factors have an outstanding influence on the most minority sectors.

Complementary are the works by Bean (1983, 1995), which add to this model, from apsychological perspective, a person’s attitudes and behaviors and external factors have a majorinfluence on persistence (family support, family responsibilities, economic resources, etc).Therefore, this author incorporates to the Tinto’s model the characteristics of the productivitymodel developed in the context of work organizations. It replaces the variables of the workenvironment with the most suitable for the university education and, in short, considers the studiessatisfaction such as work satisfaction.

This model considers that these factors have an effect on desertion: (1) academic factors: prior touniversity, academic integration and academic results; (2) psychosocial factors: goals, perceivedutility, interaction with parents and teachers; (3) environmental factors: funding, opportunities tochange university, external social relations; (4) socialization factors: academic performance,adaptation and institutional commitment. In more recent studies, Bean and Vesper (1990)observed that the non-cognitive factors, like the personal characteristics (attitudes, aspirations,motivations, interests), environmental and organizational, also carry a significant weight indesertion and in particular, voluntary desertion.

In parallel, there also exists an evolution of the same Tinto theoretical model, which this authorintegrates into all the theoretical contributions from other studies. In this way, the integrating modelpasses into the current persistence model.

n Integration model (Tinto, 1975, 1987): the drop out is produced because the individualbreaks ties with the institution/studies on not being able to bear the anxiety that he suffersbecause of the differences in his social and academic integration.

n Persistence model (Tinto, 1997): incorporates within the theoretical persistence modelseveral external factors to the same student but which, undoubtedly, help to explain theintention to drop out. It also integrates the classroom experiences.


20 <

FIGURE 2 PERSISTENCE MODEL (TINTO, 1997, P. 615)

Institutionalexperiences

Student’seffort

Academicresults

Goals andcommitments Results

Persistence

Intentions

Quality of thestudent’seffort

Learning

Goals andcommitments

Externalcommitments

Academicintegration

Socialintegration

With the intention of integrating the contributions stated by Bean into the Tinto’s theoretical model,Cabrera, Nora and Castañeda (1992, 1993) and Cabrera, Nora and Asker (1999) set out an integralmodel that entails three phases for the student. In a first phase, academic skills, previousexperiences and socioeconomic factors influence the decision to continue one’s studies. In asecond phase, the student values the cost-benefit that the studies entail and, therefore, establishesan initial commitment to the completion of the studies. In a last phase, after entry to a degree,other factors begin to influence which modify and/or reinforce initial aspirations.

FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH UNIVERSITY DROP OUTThe drop out problem plays a crucial role in educational centers, especially in regard to thechallenge which entails achieving a feeling of belonging and of students’ integration within theinstitution and the completion of the course of studies. It is fundamental for universities to identifythe factors associated with the decision to persist in order to adjust their retention actions orstrategies at the different institutional levels.

Research carried out in the nineties, developed within the framework of the integrating explanatorymodels, have demonstrated that there is a great amount of variables related to the drop out of thestudies. Bourdages (1996) makes the following classification:


> 21

a) Demographical: age, sex, marital status, ethnical origin, social origin.

b) Contextual: family, occupation, material conditions, geographic conditions, life changes.

c) Institutional: academic year, counseling services received, assignments and tutorials.

d) Characteristics of the person that learns: style of learning, school antecedents, motivation,perception of the courses offered and of the study plan.

Apart from taking into account the latest appraisals of the Bologna agreement on the EuropeanHigher Education Area that require higher performance and success rates, there are othervariables, of no less importance, that intervene in the university drop outs like (Beaupère et al,2007) the studies organization, hierarchy of degrees in specialization, and the difficulties andobstacles which students find not only throughout the courses, but also once they are introducedto the labour market.

Researchers and theoreticians who study the university drop out treat several elements, whichwe summarize as follows. To start off with, it is necessary to distinguish two types of determiningfactors: the social, economic or macrosocial, and the individual, more personal or microsocialones. Among the first ones, there are many ways to focus on the drop outs: on the one hand, theanalysis of the democratization (and, therefore, the overcrowding) of the university education, thehidden selection by social class and by level, the weight of the formation previous to the university,the orientation role and the unavoidable obstacles of a badly focused orientation; on the other, thedifferent philosophies of the university options, not always disinterested nor open enough. Amongthe second determining factors, the individual ones, they highlight the following: the consequencesof the human assets (which do not always coincide with the professional objectives of theuniversities); the time that a student dedicates to processing secondary school , which notoriouslyinfluences on the university drop out: the different options to orientate students so that they pursuetheir personal and life project; the typology of each student and how he experiences the academiclife, and the family determiners, among others.

Factors and dimensions

The study on university drop out has been approached from different perspectives, each of whichemphasizes certain factors from which we want to predict elements, situations and conditionsthat lead a student to give up the university studies.

From the analysis of the Tinto model, that is, from an integrating explanatory model, we can findthe most relevant factors of the university drop out. The author distinguishes, on the one hand,the personal characteristics of students, and, of the other one, the institution characteristics, asthe following table shows.


22 <

TABLE 2 FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH THE UNIVERSITY DROP OUT

ACCORDING TO TINTO’S MODEL

From the analysis of the Tinto model, Braxton (2000) identifies the personal characteristics ofstudents (psychological model), the social context (sociological model) and the institutionaldimension (organizational and inter-acting model) as relevant dimensions in the study of theuniversity drop out. From the revision by Braxton, Southerland (2006) proposes a synthesis ofpredictive factors in regard to the university drop out.

TABLE 3 PROPOSAL OF THE FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH THE SOUTHERLAND

UNIVERSITY DROP OUT (2006)

PERSONAL FACTORS INSTITUTIONAL FACTORS

Family backgroundn Socioeconomic statusn Parent’s educational leveln Parent’s expectations

Individual qualities n Institutional structuren Academic abilities n Normative structuren Racen Genre

Previous academic experiencesn High school characteristics n Congruence between the student and the n Memory of the aims achieved in school university social system:

- Equal groups- Extracurricular activities- Interaction with the teachers and administrators

Academic integration

Social integration

DIMENSIONS FACTORS

Predisposition and personal background Basic family education Social classParent’s educational level Parents and/or partners work situationParents and/or partners work recordPersonal habits / social capitalPersonal academic record

Personal aims Personal improvementAcquisition of new skills and knowledgesPersonal prestige

Self perceptions Auto-effectivenessAuto-controlPerception of fitting in the institutionCapacity to complete the course requirements


> 23

In our context, Cabrera et al (2006) formulate the following factor classification as a result of theanalysis of different existing explanatory models.

DIMENSIONS FACTORS

Mandatory circumstances Alterations in the family environment (unemployment, death...)Economic needs

Means/resources Access to financial aids and counselingFamily support and support from other significant peopleCorrect access to informationAvailability of educational programsPersonal habits / social skillsPersonal educational skillsOwn economic resources

Favorable circumstances Family supportColleagues supportEmployer supportCapacity for self-organization and to fulfill personalbligations

Institution Type of institutionGeographical locationEconomic costInstitution’s purposesInstitution’s prestigeStudy planEducational policiesStudent’s profilesAwareness of students needs Campus atmosphereCoherence between the institutional characteristics andpersonal goalsRelationship between the teaching staff and studentRelationship between other staff and the student

Social and academic experiences Teacher’s sensitivity toward the student’s needsTeacher’s skills to connect with the studentsTeaching suitability for student typology Interactions between students, teachers- students andstudents-teachers


24 <

TABLE 4 PROPOSAL OF FACTORS ASSOCIATED TO THE UNIVERSITY DROP OUT

BY CABRERA (2006)

In our context, Cabrera et al (2006) formulate the following factor classification as a result of theanalysis of different existing explanatory models.

DIMENSIONS FACTORS

Psycho-educational MotivationPositive expectationsEffort capacityAdaptation to the educational systemCapacity to face institution demands Perception of academic successEducational valuesEducational environment perceptionUniversity support

Developmental SkillsEmotional controlPersonal autonomySelf-awareness Interpersonal relationshipGoal developmentIntegrity development

Familiar Family pressure Family responsibilitiesEconomic resources of the family

Economic Financial family resources Own financial resources Need to workFinancial aid

Institutional Studies characteristics Academic resourcesTeachersUniversity policy Relationship between the teachers and studentsAid programsInstitutional structureStudent’s perception of his/her careerDemand levelRelationship between colleagues

Social Relationship with the job marketDevelopment of the technologies of distance communication Change in the university education


> 25

Variables at risk

The factors with the greatest explanatory weight for the university drop out are associated withthe academic and personal background of the student (Rodríguez et al, 2004). Among all these,what stands out for its predictive power is the access grade. Other variables such as gender, entryoption from high school and the typology of studies contribute to specifying and describing thisphenomenon. In this manner and in relation to the variables associated within this study, we havedifferentiated:

1. Demographic variables

2. Contextual variables

3. Institutional variables

4. Variables for the person who learns

Demographic variables

Age and gender are the variables that all researchers have taken into account. In general. anegative correlation between age and persistence has not been found. However, the results ofthe research have demonstrated a correlation with mediating variables, for example, between ageand locus of control or between age and integration rate. Other demographic variables which mustbe considered are economic standard, social origin and gender identity.

Regarding the economic standard and the social origin, there is the belief that, once theknowledge society is democratized, qualifications will help in scaling the social ladder as to socialstatus or to job stability. This social belief has led Europe to reconsider the structure of thecompulsory and non compulsory secondary school education whereby a high school degree(batxillerat) is perceived as a magical key to a lasting and indisputable social welfare state for bothstudents and their families. Upon further analysis of the statistics, when the number of registereduniversity students is compared, we observe that this figure is the greatest in four decades. Thisovercrowding has led, obviously, to expected results in devaluation of degrees, excess demand,social declassing and massive studies drop out.

In practically all countries of the European Union, attempts are made to explain the difficulties ofachieving success in the first course of university (or, at least, in the first cycle). However, it hasbeen demonstrated that the effort to democratize the university education has not erased socialinequalities, which persist and are a burden that has hindered political, economic and studiesorganization, especially regarding the selection of new entry students, excess demand, and theoffer and counteroffer from university institutions.

Regarding gender belonging, almost all the countries of the European Union can demonstratethat girls, who had been really excluded from schools for decades, now access the university in avery significant way. In fact, there are careers in which women amply surpass 50% of all registered


26 <

students (for example, in health sciences and education sciences studies). But it is also found that,for different reasons, girls do not take the best possible decision which has given rise to thephenomenon that girls with a valuable academic performance in secondary school have not knownhow to make good choices in their university career. The case of the polytechnic universities issymbolic, not to say symptomatic. Perhaps the same girls (and/or their families) through self-censorship cut off their ambitions and expectations before choosing an option.

With Donoso et al (2007) we can confirm that women already reduce their possibilities whenchoosing their studies or professional career (academic preparation and profession selection).The elections are many times made in biased or in a stereotyped manner. They generally chooseprofessions which are traditionally considered female professions to which they not only agreebut their choices are also supported by their families and teachers. The influence of gender in thisaspect is demonstrated in classic works such as Borderías i Carrasco (1994), in reports of theInstituto Navarro de la Mujer and the Instituto Andaluz de la Mujer, and in many other publicationsdating from the late nineties. The choices of university course of studies already show significantdifferences between girls and boys, so that men traditionally opt for technical careers and womenfor humanities. This atavistic tendency can clearly be seen at secondary school.

However, and in spite of these deficiencies in the university studies selection, it is the girls, eitherbecause they demonstrate greater maturity than boys of the same age or because they are morededicated to developing their professional project, give up their studies less frequently in the firstcourses or in the first cycle. It seems that they are more concerned about entering the workforceand job opportunities than boys. With Beaupère et al (2007, p 43) we can affirm that girls give uptheir studies less than boys, even though they enroll in shorter study programs oriented towardhumanities because of the aforementioned barriers.

Contextual variables

These variables are, in principle, the family, occupation, material conditions, geographicalconditions and vital changes. They are mainly those variables that focus on the personal and familylife of students more than on their academic life. In fact, these variable focus on taking into accountmaterial and economic conditions, physical conditions and the geographical location of those whowant to access university studies (Figuera, Dorio and Forner, 2003).

These conditions do not play a relevant role of first order, but they do have a certain influence onpersistence. For example, we should not undervalue the proximity to the university and its role indesired integration in the institution. Academic life and social life interfere mutually at shorterdistances. We should not ignore the influence of the family living standards (especially if there isnot a good policy for studies scholarships and aids) and of the young students’ social networks.The person who financially depends on his/her family is less persistent than the autonomous one.It is also very important to value students holding a job which allows for developing timemanagement skills since the difficulty in managing time is one of the most frequent causes fordropping out.


> 27

Institutional variables

In general, the institutional variables are the degree programes that the institution offers,curriculum, pedagogic support, academic work that graduates must do, tutorship and council,etc, all of which are related to the support and the tools that are available to students. On onehand, the learning orientation and the studies follow-up stand out while, on the other hand,professional orientation for later social and labor insertion in a medium-term future. Learningorientation in an academic environment can encompass everything related to tutorship ― whichattends to the personal and academic needs―from motivation on the significance and utility ofstudies, flexibility and curriculum choices, to the student’s active participation with the facultyand/or of the department of student affairs as well as emphasis on training in planning the finalstudies project. Regarding professional orientation and labor insertion, training is key on how toconstruct a professional project through student support, ranging from the beginning (open doorsand faculty reception) until the possible placement in a company or in a job. The professionalproject and the final career project are two anchors which have an enormous impact on thepermanence of students at the institution, because they are perceived as a guarantee of continuityand an placement in the work world (Rodríguez et al, 2008).

It is important to pay attention, in this section, to the role of the welcoming institution regardingthe academic and instructive knowledge that students have inherited from the previous schoolsituations. In certain countries, decision making regarding the formative trajectories takes placetoo early; in other words, the decision on which studies the student wants to follow is often decidedtoo prematurely which can be from primary school to non-compulsory secondary school throughto university studies. Moreover, in many places, the choice of certain specialties in high schoolalready predisposes delay to university studies (it is a well-known fact that in the United Kingdomstudents start to take decisions at 11 years of age) a fact which conditions the career that they willchoose.

Also of great importance is the fact that a large portion of students want to enter the university,even though their performance level and qualifications in secondary school are not brilliant andwithout realizing that further on he/she can find difficulties. This aspect is reinforced by socialselection which can produce homogeneity problems.

Furthermore, it must not be forgotten that even though a total democratization of the education isadmitted in the European Union, the social origin of students continues to be a differentiating factorin career choice. It has even been demonstrated that the economic inequality of families hasgreater influence than a family’s cultural background and education.

One also has to keep in mind the existence of or the lack of good academic and professionalorientation services at the end of secondary school and upon entering university. Depending onthe support received from the orientating system, a person’s decision on dropping-out or persistingin their studies can vary drastically. In secondary school, having a the realistic vision of what the


28 <

university represents along with initiating the planning of a professional degree act as safeguardsin making real and congruent decisions on competent possibilities for future university in line withfamily expectations. In effect, Bourdages (1996) affirms that understanding the development of aformative and professional project is a mental activity closely correlated to persistence in studies.A realistic and far-sighted orientation can prevent a transition with erratic trajectories.

Variables of the person who learns

Topics that researchers have studied because they are believed to have a special incidence in thedrop out rate are: learning styles, previous schooling, motivation, vocational maturity, courseperception and curriculums, etc. The two main aspects mentioned by the researchers as indicatorsof great significance are the relation between the student and the institution through a feeling ofbelonging and of membership and the relation with the body of the studies, in other words, inreference to all the range of results obtained during the academic life until choosing a career path.A student’s competence results from acquired experience to not only plan their academicobjectives, but to know how to manage their study time in an orderly fashion. Lack of time canbecome an excuse to explain other reasons for failure and for non-persistence (Garland, 1993).This is a more a personal factor than an institutional factor which deals with the skills for planningand to writing up work, for correct study habits, for the capacity to work in a team or for knowinghow to use available means of communication, even though it has not been demonstrated in anirrefutable way that these factors are the first cause of drop out.

Other factors that depend on the personal idiosyncrasy of the student are the cognitive andpersonality traits. Among cognitive traits, what stands out is the style of learning, which has a keyrole in the step from the secondary school to university. There have been few studies carried outon the cognitive aspects (Hernández and Maquillón, 2000), since the majority have focused onstudents in compulsory education, within the framework of different theories like those by Piaget,Vigotski, Bruner, Ausubel, Sternberg or Feuerstein (Gallifa, 1990). The most dealt with aspectsoperate on the basis of experiential learning by Kolb (1984). Regarding the personality, theelements that mainly stand out are the locus of control, that is, the control of the external andinternal conditions, and motivation, the intrinsic as well as the extrinsic. The motivation factor, inaddition, has almost an economic dimension that assimilates the perception of the studies as aninvestment which increases the permanence in the university degree.

Finally, the importance that students’ vocational maturity is evident in the process of persistenceand/or drop out and which can in no way be treated separately. Vocational maturity hassignificantly promoted some concepts of a professional orientation with an understanding as long-term the global development of the personal and professional life of a person. This concept hasgained importance because teachers and educational institutions administrators had just notbelieved that a teenager or a youngster was in condition of taking intelligent and long-termdecisions regarding their future academic and career path because at certain ages some havenot reached the maturity to do so.


> 29

Either for personal causes (lack of vocational maturity), family causes (disproportionate futureexpectations with regard to their children) (Guichard, 1995, p 46-56), educational causes (lack ofprofessional orientation in secondary school, inconsistency in the curriculum, etc) or policies(disconnection between the educational and labor policies of a country), university drop out rateshave become a priority issue among educational administrations (Rayou, 2000). However, it isnecessary to say that institutions have little influence on certain external circumstances;nevertheless, internal policies can be changed to combat the drop out phenomenon.

> 31

2. NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL OUTLOOK OF THE UNIVERSITY

DROP OUT*

INTRODUCTIONAs we mentioned in the previous chapter, the drop out rate is an indicator of complex analysis andthere is not a consensus on its significance rather it lends itself to make a contextual use.Nevertheless, universities do not have a systematized univocal way to collect data on their studentdrop outs, which makes it difficult to measure. As a consequence, the formulas applied to analyzethis phenomenon differ among countries and, thus, to make comparative studies is more than achallenge.

This chapter provides a general vision of the student drop out in different university contexts,basically, from the data compiled in several reports elaborated by national and internationalorganizations such as the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OCDE), theNational Center for Education Statistics (NCES) of the United States, The International UNESCOInstitute for Higher Education in Latin America and the Caribbean (IESALC), the Conferencia deRectores de las Universidades Españolas (CRUE), the Observatoire National de la Vie Étudianteof France, the National Audit Office (NAO), the Higher Education Funding Council for England(HEFCE), the Higher Education Information System of the United Kingdom, RAND Europe and theBanca di Italia. In particular, it shows the different formulas used to measure the drop out, theending, the desertion or the university students survival rates, and the common causes of thisphenomenon in the American and European continents and in Spain. The final purpose is to offeran extensive perspective on how this phenomenon is being studied and faced in several contexts,in order to design and develop action plans which are designed to increase the retention and thestudent’s performance at university institutions, as we will see further on.

MEASUREMENT OF THE UNIVERSITY DROP OUT The conceptual and concrete defining of the university drop out is a complex task that goes beyondthe theoretical arena and that manifests itself in the policies, actions and studies developed byuniversities and countries from all over the world. It is also complex to measure because it requires,not only knowing what it is we want to measure, but also having suitable and exact institutional

* The authors of the final version of the chapter have been: Mònica Feixas, David Rodríguez and Joaquín Gairín.


32 <

data, collected systematically during a certain period of time. For this reason, the drop out conceptand the terms that are related to it are both conceived and perceived in a different way, and areassigned with terminology that has diverse connotations according to the context ―desertion,stopping, completion, discontinuity, (non-)persistence, survival or retention―, as mentioned in theprevious chapter.

In some countries, finishing is referred to the number of students who graduate within the 150%of the time over a normal course period (six years). But in Ireland, for example, it specifies studentsthat finish their studies on time and from those who graduate late. In Australia and the Netherlandsthey use other definitions: in Australia the drop out refers to the number of students who leave theuniversity studies after the first year and finishing in graduation percentage after seven years in theuniversity education; in the Netherlands they use the term progress or continuation to refer to thenumber of students who stay in the course and progress on time. In Italy they also use the terminactive students, which refer to those students who are enrolled in a university for at least threeyears but have not attended any subject during the last year. It is, therefore, a challenge to try tomake comparisons between percentages of completion and drop outs between countries,understanding the differences in the way in which these terms are defined and calculated.

To be able to analyze the drop out phenomenon and to facilitate its calculation, in Spain, drop outcorresponds to students who registered during a course and did not formally enroll again for thenext two course periods. Enrollment cancellations are excluded from this recount. In particular,«the drop out indicator registers in a specific course the percentage of students that drop outwithout academic accreditation, which pertains to the group of registered students to first course,for the first time, in the different degree courses during the academic year (n-t), being (t) the officialduration programmed for each degree at official university centers and (n) in the concrete academiccourse (e.g., 2006-2007), and that have not registered themselves in these degree programes inthe two previous courses (2004-2005 and 2005-2006) respectively» (Hernández, 2008, p 522).

In South America it is mainly referred as desertion, that it is understood as «the voluntary orobligatory drop out process of the degree in which a student is enrolled brought about by thepositive or negative influence of internal or external circumstances towards him or her» (González,2006, p 157). The rates of global desertion in the university education systems are calculated onthe basis of the «qualification efficiency», that is understood as the proportion of students whograduate in a year in relation to those that enter as many years before as the academic years of adegree. Thus, González (2006) describes the desertion by degrees considering the group thatenter three years before the foreseen duration of the qualification. From each group he establishesthe amount of students who graduate in the foreseen time, those who complete it one, two andthree years later, respectively, and those who have not graduated yet and continue studying. Allthose students of the entry group that are not included in the above mentioned groups areconsidered «Deserters». The deserter’s calculation was later improved upon by considering theconcept of «adjusted desertion», according to which half of students who have not graduated yetand who continue studying will end up dropping-out of the degree programe.

NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL OUTLOOK OF THE UNIVERSITY DROP OUT

> 33

Finally, the Anglo-Saxon countries also analyze the student retention. The report of the NationalAudit Office (NAO) (2007) of the United Kingdom, for example, uses mainly two measurements:

1. The completion rate: the proportion of students who start in a year and that continue theirstudies until they obtain the degree, with not more than one consecutive year out of theuniversity education. Since the university degrees take years to complete, the HigherEducation Statistics Agency (HESA) of the United Kingdom has made an estimate of theexpected completion rates.

2. The continuation rate: a more immediate measure that consists of the enrollment percentageby institution that is enrolled the following year from the initial entry to university.

The calculation of the factors that are related to the continuation rate is made through the «linearregression» technique. The regression model measures the relation between the continuation ofstudents and a number of variables such as age, gender and degree programe. Through thiscalculation, we can predict how the continuation rate changes as several variables change. Thus,a «r2» of 0,84 indicates that the model explains 71% of the variation in the continuation rates forfull time students. According to the NAO report, it is considered a reasonably optimum model forthis collective, but not as much as for part-time students.

The United Kingdom and the OCDE complement the data on the continuation rate with thecalculation of the general survival rates in university education. According to the OCDE, the survivalis the indicator that indirectly measures the internal efficiency of higher education systems. Thosewho enroll in a type A university study program and obtain a degree with a type A or B qualification,or those that enroll in a type B program and obtain a degree with type A or B2 qualification.

In short, we find higher education institutions that measure the drop out and the desertion as muchas they measure the completion and/or survival. The first two concepts are probably easier tocalculate if they are only associated with the number of students that drop out of studies whenthey do not enroll in any subject or module during two consecutive terms. The two last conceptsrepresent an exercise of greater accuracy: on the one hand, the calculations of the percentagesof qualified people assumes projecting an estimation of the expected completion rates, on theother one, the calculation of the probability that students continue and complete a degreeimplicates having at hand a wider set of variables to be able to offer significant data, as well as toconsider part-time students or those slow to complete their degree and full-time students.

2 Traditional university degree is associated with the type A, while the type B, generally, refers to shorter or inferiorcourses in a period of three years, often directed toward professional training (training cycles of second term) so asto provide a direct access to the job market. However, the shorter the type A of university programs are (consideredof medium duration, from three to four years), the higher the participation rates and degrees in this formation level.


34 <

ACCESS, PARTICIPATION AND PROGRESSION IN UNIVERSITY EDUCATION Policies for the expansion of education have managed to increase the pressure to greater accessto university education. This pressure has clearly offset falling enrollment and, although somecountries like Spain and Portugal now show signs of stabilization in demand for universityeducation, the overall tendency continues to be upwards.

The reference report, Education at a Glance3 of 2008, by the OCDE, sustains that the rates ofuniversity graduates have increased considerably in the last decades, that the expansion of theuniversity education has had a positive impact on individuals and on national economies, and that,up to now, there are no signs of an «inflation» in degree value.

For this reason, we can affirm that the current performance of the educational systems is relatedto access to university education, participation in the university system and obtaining universitydegrees or the completion of the studies. Since the typology of programs and the age of accessto the university are variables that affect the completion of the studies, we make special mention:

n Regarding the typology of programs, the proportion of students who access universityeducation programs of type A area, in general, superior to type B. In the OCDE countries, inwhich we have access to data, 15% of the youngsters, as an average, access universityeducation programs of type B, compared to 54% that opt for programs of type A and 2% thatopt for programs of advanced research (here they oscillate between less than 1% in somecountries and 3% or more in Spain, Greece, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Switzerland).Spain and New Zealand are the only countries of the OCDE that show a decrease in the entryrates in programs of type A, although in the case of Spain this decrease is counterbalancedfor the significant increase of the entry rates in programs of type B.

n Regarding age, students traditionally access university immediately after having completedthe second stage of secondary education, and this continues to be similar in many countriesof the OCDE. For example, in Spain, more than 80% of all new enrollments in universityeducation programs are younger than 23 years of age.

In other countries of the OCDE and associated economies, the transition to the university levelis often delayed, in some cases because of the time dedicated to work. In these countries,individuals that enroll in university education programs are, normally, older and show a widerange of ages when they enter the university system. The proportion of students of older agesthat enter university for the first time can reflect, among other factors, the flexibility of theseprograms and its suitability for students who are not considered the typical or model agegroup. It could also be the reflection of a specific vision to the value of work experience forhigher education or the fact that in some countries there is the compulsory military service,which would delay entry to university.

3 Report that investigates, among other questions, the effects of the university education expansion in the job marketin the thirty member countries.


> 35

Access and Participation in university education

The OCDE (2008) reports that the higher the rate of graduation at the secondary school level, thehigher the entry rates to university are. To understand the choices that students make at the endof secondary education and the type of orientation they receive is extremely important and willlater affect the rate of drop out as well as unemployment rates in that what is studied is not in linewith demand in the workforce.

Furthermore, the continual rise in participation and the growing diversity in candidate backgroundand interests for those who continue a university programe places pressure on institutions to notonly widen their admissions standards but also to adapt their programs and teaching to the needsof new generations of students. The public, in general, associates university programs with labordemands and greater earning capacity.

On the other hand, to begin and not finish a university program does not necessarily mean failureif the student can benefit from the time spent in the program to enter other programs at a lowerlevel. In many cases, not receiving a degree does not mean that acquired skills and competenceare lost and are not valued by the labor force. The OCDE report cites Canada where one year ofstudies can even open doors to attractive opportunities for students entering the workforce. Thiswould explain why many students choose to drop out before graduating. In Sweden, studentsoften take leave from their studies to work but to later continue without losing credits that arealready gained.

About the completion and the survival rates of the university studies

The OCDE report shows the current performance of the educational systems regarding obtaininga university education degree, that is, the percentage of population in the typical age of obtainingand completing the university education that continues and successfully finishes the studyprogram. The number of students who finish their university education is increasing. In the twenty-four countries with comparable data, an average of 36% of the youngsters complete their universitystudies. However, there are great differences between countries in the percentages of studentsthat have completed successfully either a university program or a university education withprofessional orientation. In the calculation of the countries of the OCDE with available data, anaverage of 30% of students enrolled in the university education do not conclude their studies.

Spain, together with Ireland, offers access to higher education in a more equitable way, while inAustria, Germany, France and Portugal only half of students from a working social classbackground are likely to enter higher education compared to what the OCDE suggests accordingto the proportion of population for each country.


36 <

There are great variations in the percentages of young people who expect to continue their studieswith a university education. Near 57% of the youngsters of 15 years of age in the OCDE countriesexpect to enter university, but this figure varies from a 95% of students in Korea to 21% in Germany.The indicators show that the expectations differ depending on each country and according to thelevels of individual performance, gender, socioeconomic origin and immigrant status:

n The 2003 data from the Programe for International Student Assessment (PISA) demonstratethat the expectations to complete a university program of 15 year old students are narrowlylinked to their performance in reading and mathematics.

n Independently from their academic aptitudes, students of 15 years of age that have a lowersocioeconomic origin have less probabilities of concluding higher education than the onescoming from more favorable socioeconomic environments.

n Students that come from an immigrant origin have more probabilities of completing theuniversity studies than their native colleagues. Their expectations are even higher than thenative student’s expectations that have the same aptitudes and similar socioeconomicenvironments.

Graph 1 shows the number of university graduates divided by the number of students of new entryin the typical years of entry in a specified program, that is, the rates of survival.


> 37

GRAPH 1 SURVIVAL RATES IN THE UNIVERSITY EDUCATION (OCDE, 2008)

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Japan

Belgium (Fl.)

France4

Ireland

Turkey

Netherlands

Spain

Germany

Finland

United Kingdom

Iceland4

Mexico

Poland

Portugal

Czech Republic

Hungary

Sweden

Greece

New Zealand

OCDE Average

The report concludes that, even though programe drop out is not necessarily a failure indicatorfrom the point of view of the individual student, a high percentage of drop outs could indicate thatthe educational system does not satisfy student needs.

The following graph summarizes the drop out percentage in the tertiary education in the OCDEcountries, according to the latest data (2008). The countries are indexed in a descending order inthe proportion of students that enter a university program and come out without a diploma. Theabsence of data on Spain is surprising. Undoubtedly, this brings up the need to carry out studiesthat allow the elaboration of reliable statistics.


38 <

GRÀPH 2 DROP OUT PERCENTAGE IN THE UNIVERSITY EDUCATION (OCDE, 2008)

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0

Italy

United States

New Zealand

Hungary

Mexico

Estonia

United Kingdom

Poland

Slovenia

Norway

Czech Republic

Portugal

Sweden

Iceland

Slovak Republic

Switzerland

Austria

Netherlands

Australia

Finland

Canada (Quebec)

Germany

Russian Federation

France

Belgium (Fl.)

Denmark

Japan

OCDE Average

THE UNIVERSITY STUDIES DROP OUT ON THE AMERICANCONTINENTThe great extension and diversity of the American territory makes it difficult to find commonpatterns in the study of university drop out, because of the variety of institutions as well as differentuniversity systems. In the United States alone there are up to thirty-two organizational typologiesthat offer university studies, according to data from the Carnegie Foundation of 2005;4 and in LatinAmerica and the Caribbean, there has been a great proliferation of small, private higher educationinstitutions. However, in the majority of countries in Latin America and the Caribbean, the accessto higher education is still limited to a small portion of the population (González, 2006): less than20% adults older than 25 years of age have attended university and less than 10% have completedtheir university studies.

Next, we show some data of the most significant reports that have been carried out, first, in theUnited States and, afterwards, in Latin American countries.

4 Distribution of institutions and registrations:http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/classifications/index.asp?key=805


> 39

The majority of studies and North American experts in this area use data from the IntegratedPostsecondary Education Data System (IPED) of the National Center on Educational Statistics(NCES),5 from the Education Department of the United States. One of the main limitations of thisdata base is that it does not consider students who change centers or students that change frompart-time to full-time dedication to university (Shay, 2008). However, there are other nationalinstitutions, as what was formerly known as the American College Testing Program (now ACT),6

that use data coming from their own measurement system. The Survey on Institutional Data (IDQ)that is annually applied in more than 2,500 universities and colleges is an example.

We have organized this study on drop out in the United States in three main issues of interest:

1. The student’s persistence and performance at university (Choy, 2002; Horn, Berger andCarroll, 2004, and Berkner et al., 2007).

2. The drop out in specific collectives: part-time students (O’Tool, Stratton and Wetzel, 2003,and Chen and Carroll, 2007).

3. The academic and non-academic factors in university drop out and retention (Lotkowski,Robbins and Noeth, 2004).

Even though during the last years the persistence rates have increased, there is a significantnumber of students who change centers for personal, financial and educational motives. For thisreason, some studies differentiate among the «retention rate in post-secondary education» andthe « institutional retention rate» (Choy, 2002).

According to the data of a group of students registered during the 1989-1990 academic year(Choy, 2002):

n 47% of students obtain their degree in the first institution where they study.

n 44% of students leave their first institution (some drop out and others move to otherinstitutions): in this case, 13% of students obtain a degree in another institution and a 7% arestill enrolled in other institutions.

n The persistence in the post-secondary education (in five years) stands at 72%, considerablyhigher to the institutional retention rate.

The non-traditional students (older, married, parents, full-time workers) have an inferior persistenceand performance rate. Only 31% of the non-traditional students obtain their degree in four years,in comparison to 54% of traditional students.

5 http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds6 http://www.act.org/


40 <

The studies show that, in the majority of the cases, the drop out decision is temporary. 64% ofstudents who drop out of university, traditional and non-traditional, come back during the sixfollowing years (some of them to the same institution, but the majority in a different one).

On the other hand, if we compare the data related to the group of students who started the post-secondary studies in the academic years 1989-1990 and 1995-1996, we can see a significantincrease of four years in the persistence rates at public universities, but not in the case of theprivate universities regardless of for-profit or not. (Horn, Berger and Caroll, 2004).

This developed comparative study by the NCES detects some variations regarding persistenceand achievement depending on the student’s socio-demographic characteristics. The mostsignificant changes in persistence improvement are identified among male, white students withlow incomes. However, we do not detect great changes among women, ethnic groups andstudents with a high level of income.

According to Choy (2002), students who drop out of university present different characteristicsand behaviors from those that stay at university: they have parents without postsecondary studies,they delay their enrollment after secondary education, they obtain low qualifications during thefirst year, they work thirty-five hours weekly or more and they participate little or in moderate wayin co-curricular activities (tutorships, study groups, related school activities, etc).

The study developed by O'Toole, Stratton and Wetzel (2003) from the data from the NCES’sBeginning Postsecondary Survey of years 1990 and 1994 and of followed-up interviews duringyears 1992 and 1994 show that:

n Between 52% and 62% of the students who are part of the analyzed sample are part- timeenrolled or they have dropped-out of their studies during a period of time or a semester, thisis called a stop-out.

n 70% of the part-time enrolled students do not persist after the last follow-up interview. Afterexcluding those students who had only enrolled for a semester or period of time, the non-permanence rate is still high: of 65%.

According to Chen and Carroll (2007), from the total of students who started in the academic year1995-1996 and exclusively in a part-time dedication, only 15% completed their degree or diplomaby 2001; none had obtained a bachelor’s degree; 27% have persisted; 73% have left their studieswithout obtaining a degree, and 46% dropped out during the first year. These results are coherentwith other research and studies (Choy, 2002; Horn, Beger and Carroll, 2004, and Chen and Carroll,2007) that confirm that part-time attendance at university and working more than fifteen hoursweekly reduces the likelihood of persistence.


> 41

Other studies point out, in consonance with the approaches revised in the first chapter on thecurrent explanatory drop out models, that the retention of university students is dynamic andimplies a complex interaction among academic and non-academic factors (Lotkowski, Robbinsand Noeth, 2004):

n The non-academic factors of academic competence, academic self-confidence, academicaims, institutional commitment, social support, determine contextual influences (institutionalselectivity and financial aid/help) and social implication have a positive relationship to retention.

n Likewise, the academic factors such as grade average in secondary school, the evaluationgrade on the ACT tests and the socioeconomic status also have a positive relationship toretention. The strongest relationship is with the «average grade», followed by thesocioeconomic status and the grades on the ACT tests. Regarding performance, therelationship is even stronger when these three variables are combined with the institutionalcommitment, academic goals, social support, academic self-confidence and socialimplication.

n Furthermore, in regard to performance, the results indicate that the non academic factorssuch as academic self-confidence and motivation to achieve are strongly related to theaverage grade on university records.

The characteristics, the factors and the magnitude of the drop out or desertion at the public andprivate universities of Latin America and the Caribbean have been systematized in the report byThe International Institute for Higher Education in Latin America and the Caribbean (IESALC) onthe state of the higher education in countries in this area between the years 2000 and 2005. Thereport understands desertion as «the degree drop out process, voluntary or obligatory, in whicha student is enrolled through either a positive or negative influence of internal or externalcircumstances in regard to him or her» (González, 2006, p. 157).

The desertion calculation at participant institutions was made considering the «adjusted desertion»concept in three degree programs (Law, Civil Engineering in Public Works and Medicine) whichallowed for a representation of different knowledge areas in four institutions (two public ones andtwo private ones) for each participant country.

The rates on global desertion in the higher education systems are also calculated on the basis ofthe « degree efficiency », that is understood as the proportion of students who graduate in a yearin relation to those that enter as many years earlier as the number of academic years required tocomplete a degree. According to the study, with the exception of Cuba, only 43% of those thatenter higher education studies graduate in the established period.

It is necessary to say that the study and the follow-up of university students drop out, retentionand persistence in Latin America and the Caribbean, even though it has increased considerablyduring the last years, has not been carried out in a systematic way, unlike countries like Holland or


42 <

Australia (Van Stolk et al, 2007). In this region, the university drop out and repetition study is beingunveiled as a subject of great interest and a relevant problem because of the enrollment increasesin higher education that started in the nineties (Bruneforth, Motivans and Zhang, 2004, andGonzález, 2006), mainly among the disfavored collectives and, therefore, more vulnerable to thistype of phenomena.

In relation to the factors that cause failure in the Latin American context, we can identify four factorcategories which bring about university desertion:

1. External factors: socioeconomic conditions, from the student as well as his family.

2. Institutional factors: enrollment increase, lack of suitable funding mechanisms, academicadministration policies, profession and methodology unawareness, educational andinstitutional environment, and lack of affective bonds with the university.

3. Academic factors: previous academic training, admission examinations, acquired learninglevel, excess of theoretical orientation and scarce linkage to the job market, lack of supportand orientation from the teachers, lack of information for choosing a career, lack of learningtraining and of autonomous reflection, examination requirements in the selection of thestudies, excessive duration of the studies, heterogeneity of students and insufficient teacherpreparation to attend the student population.

4. Personal factors: the student’s economic activity, aims and personal motivations, dissonancewith their expectations, lack of emotional maturity and attitudes typical of the youth, level ofsatisfaction with the university studies, graduation expectations related to the job market,trouble finding personal integration and adaptation, student’s dedication, and lack ofaptitudes, skills or interest regarding the chosen studies.

The developed study makes evident that drop out and repetition are two closely boundphenomena, since when a student repeats more than once the same subject or course, it oftenresults in drop out.


> 43

TABLE 5 SOME CONCLUSIONS ON DROP OUT IN THE AMERICAN CONTINENT

UNIVERSITY DROP OUT ON THE EUROPEAN CONTINENTIn Europe we can ascertain an increasing interest in the university drop out research and anincrease of institutional initiatives to favor the retention of students. For the time being, however,it is still hard to find researches that have achieved to compile data related with this phenomenon,and when it has been done, it has been contacting the institutions individually and for a concreteperiod of time, and they have reconstructed the data. Since in a historical way this data collectionhas been little systematic, not all the institutions have preserved the necessary data to be able tocalculate the drop out percentages.

Territory

North America (USA)

Latin America and theCaribbean

Drop out characteristics andtendencies

n The decision to drop out ofuniversity is temporary, manycome back during the sixfollowing years

n The nontraditional students havean inferior persistence andperformance rate

n Persistence increase in publicinstitutions

n The student’s profile who will dropout of his studies is the one whoobtains low qualifications duringthe first year, works 35 weeklyhours or more, participates little inco-curricular activities and hasparents without postsecondarystudies

n More than 50% does not graduatein the established time, except inCuba

n Desertion causes: socioeconomicdifficulties, lack of institutionalsupport previous academictraining typology and personaldifficulties

Determining factors of the system

n Vast diversity of institutions anduniversity systems

n Significant number of studentswho change of center

n Proliferation of small institutions ofprivate character

n Restricted access to a minority ofthe population

n Special interest in the drop outresearch in the last years,especially on the most vulnerablecollectives

In synthesis, we review this section’s main ideas:


44 <

In this section, we present Europe’s situation from the point of view of the first evaluations sincethe implementation of the Bologna process, the drop out percentages by countries, the student’stypology and the drop out causes. In fact, one of the things that is being achieved throughout theuniversity system reform or the European Higher Education Area is a more defined follow-up ofthe groups of students who have pioneered university promotions in different countries, in regardto the functioning of the European credit system as well as in relation to the methodology centeredon the student.

In this new context in which all the European universities are immersed, the attainment of highperformance levels and higher retention rates is a priority. Each country is in a different adaptationprocess to the new European framework, though the common objective is in the completion ofstudies. Later, we go through the studies drop out situation in some countries. Our selection hasbeen conditioned by the possibilities of accessing reliable data and, therefore, we are limited tosome examples that allow us to offer a general perspective on how this phenomenon is faced.

The results of the research elaborated by The Higher Education Information System (HIS)7 showthat the university drop out in Germany is being reduced, and this is seen as a consequence ofthe reforms implementation of the Bologna process, especially through the establishment of thenew degrees and postgraduate courses. In particular, the HIS indicates that the university dropout has diminished 24% in 2004 and 20% in 2006. In Social Sciences, the figure has been reducedfrom a 27% to a 10%, and more precisely, there has been a drastic decrease in language andculture studies from a 43% to 32%. In the opinion of the German Ministry of Education, this positivedevelopment shows that the Bologna process supports the aim of the university policy to reducethe university drop out abandonment and that the introduction of the degree levels is contributingto obtain one senior level of academic success.

It is not surprising that the average time duration that a student takes to complete a career hasshortened with the introduction of the bachelors’ degree. Furthermore, the first research resultsin relation to the graduate’s success in the job market are positive. The Education in Germany20088 report shows that those who obtain a degree have good opportunities in the job market, inparticular in the areas related to the engineering and business management. The initial data inrelation to the basic initial wages also reveal that there are only minimal differences betweengraduates from applied sciences universities that have obtained a diploma or the new bachelordegree.

However, Germany is still a country with a low percentage of access to higher education studiesand, therefore, have a low proportion of higher education graduates (about 20%). Since thenineties, the government has continued to establish measures to facilitate access from vocationalschools, but, however, the percentage in this case is only from 1% (Education in Germany, 2008).

7 www.his.de8 http://www.bildungsbericht.de/daten2008/summary08.pdf


> 45

The OCDE (2007) also suggests that the universities funding is made flexible in order to improvethe university education quality (establishment of payments, refundable loans according to income,etc), making it especially attractive in those “Länder” where these policies have not been implanted.

France has made up for lost time for what it could have achieved in the past in education levelsattained by its population. Currently, the proportion of youngsters among 25 and 34 years thatfinish higher education studies stands at 41% (OCDE, 2008). However, university students faceselective and non-selective degrees, a dual system that provokes access and success inequalityin higher education.

The organization of higher education, as Beaupère et al (2007) sustain, induces inequalities amongstudents through university selection which takes place through elimination or self-elimination.Felouzis (1997) differentiates between visible selection which functions through examinations, andinvisible selection, which produces drop out because it tests the student’s adaptation capacities.

The French study “L’abandon des études supérieurs”, by Beaupère et al (2007), sustains that thepeople who drop out of university are mostly boys who have obtained a high school diploma,mainly professional or technological, with a year or more of delay. The type of center and studieschosen also has a remarkable incidence on the drop out probability. We can identify two key dropout periods: (1) at the beginning of the course, for those who are not able to adapt and (2) afterthe first holidays or in the January examination period (11% of students who come out without ahigher education diploma or drop out in relation to the generation that graduated in year 2001).

This drop out of the A type education is not always seen as a failure, since the majority of studentswho drop out of it re-orient their studies towards the professional education and obtain anintermediate degree that the French institutions offer, like the Cap-Bep level (28%), the Bac level(16%), the Bac + 2 (18%) and the third cycles and large schools (9%). Only an 8% do not obtainany type of degree.

According to the OCDE data (2007), Italy is one of the countries with most drop outs among theuniversity students, with a rate of 58% compared to the 30% average in the rest of the OCDEmember countries. The European Commission has studied this singular case from the high dropout percentage and, therefore, of inefficiency of its university system (D'Hombres, 2007). The studyconfirms that the reform introduced by the EEES has increased the studies persistence: the dropout likelihood in the period before the reform was implemented is 5.4% lower than before. Thisindication, the same obtained in Germany and Portugal (Cardoso et al, 2006), augurs a higherretention and completion level of the studies in the European university institutions that areadopting the derivative proposals from the Declaration of Bologna.

Along the same line of the previous study, Cingano and Cipollone (2007) make a data analysisfrom the survey carried out in year 2001 by the National Statistics Institute of Italy (ISTAT) to 23,000


46 <

individuals and, on the basis of a representative sample (approximately 5% of the population) ofItalians graduated in secondary school in the year 1998, they present the following data in relationto the rate of drop out:

1. Of the 7,483 students that started tertiary education in 1998, 1,048 said to have left studiesduring the three years that the survey was being done.

2. 23% of students that graduated from secondary school in year 1998 changed university ordropped-out in the summer of 2001.

The authors warn that this low drop out rate has to be read while taking into account thatthere are students who do not respond to have left or have never started a degree.

3. If we measure the drop out from the perspective of the success rates (comparison amongthe number of university graduates in a concrete year with the number of students enrolledsome years earlier ―as many years as the academic degree has―), the drop out rate in 1997is 58,5%, similar to the rate obtained in the year 2001 (not very different to the one that theOCDE calculates).

When these authors analyze the causes of a high drop out rate, they focus on the family context(years of the parent’s education, the grandparent’s education and the father’s profession) formerscholar, and some personal variables (sex, age and marital status) are centered on the familycontext (years of education of the parents, education of the grandparents and profession of thefather), the performance and the previous school background and some personal variables (sex,age and marital status).

This way, they calculate that the drop out likelihood is:

n Inversely proportional to the parent’s education level;

n more pronounced among students coming from vocational schools than from high schoolsor «general schools», and argue in relation to the better learning skills that the latter have, and

n lower in women.

The rest of the variables considered (grandparent’s education, father’s profession, local conditions)do not have any significant effect on the drop out likelihood.

It is evident that, and in addition, the quality of academic programs is a fundamental indicator forthe retention and that any pedagogic reform promoted in this direction can benefit the increase inuniversity graduation rates.

The United Kingdom is favorably compared with other OCDE countries for their estimatedgraduation or survival rates. In year 2004 the UK was ranked fifth place, behind Japan, Ireland,Korea and Greece.


> 47

This country has invested important resources in consolidating a higher access policy andparticipation in university education. Its goal is to increase the participation in higher education upto 50% in individuals within the ages of 18 and 30 years, and to move forward to a more equalaccess, while keeping the drop out data in control. The United Kingdom has been one of the firstcountries to validate professional training and to establish evaluation measures of informal waysof learning. With this, higher education seeks to increase and to broaden the participation and toinclude more students that come from groups that have been less represented.

According to the last report from the National Audit Office (NAO) on student’s retention in highereducation: The Retention of Students in Higher Education, of 2007, the drop out has been reducedin the last years and the number of applicants accepted in the higher education institutions hasincreased, with some differences with respect to different degrees. The main increase has beenin Medicine and Art studies, while the main reduction in Mathematics, Computer Science andEngineering.

The report has been based on:

n an analysis of student’s data from the Higher Education Statistics Agency and quantitativeanalyses on higher education;

n case studies on selected universities, including a telephonic survey to students who drop outof that university at the beginning of the degree;

n a revision of the academic research;

n an international comparative research published in the RAND Europe report, and

n consulting different experts and institutions, and meetings with staff from the InnovationDepartment, Universities and Competencies and the Higher Education Funding Council forEngland (HEFCE).

The data is optimistic. Regarding the retention, out of 256,000 full-time students, 91.6% of themfrom the 2004-2005 academic year have enrolled in their first degree and continued to the secondyear. We expect that 78.1% of these students will finish their degree that 2.2% obtain an inferiordegree and that 5.8% continue their studies in another institution. In the case of students from apart-time first career in that same year, 76.9% continued the second year.

The difficulty lies in finding data on part-time students, because of the inherent flexibility in thedifferent study patterns. The calculation of students completion expectations have not been ableto be done because of the lack of consistency in the course structures in which they can enroll.

The report points out the main reasons why students drop out of the university programs in theUnited Kingdom, they are very varied and are closely related to current explanatory models thathave been revised in the first chapter:


48 <

n Personal issues: physical or mental illness; feeling homesick, a problem that lasts andbecomes worse, especially among young women and students in rural areas, or theequilibrium among study requirements and domestic duties, like taking care of children orelderly people.

n Dissatisfaction with the course or the institution: boredom or dissatisfaction with theeducation provision, the course or the program, when it does not result in obtaining thedesired professional accreditation.

n Lack of preparation: the course contents are not the ones expected; students do not havethe suitable skills to study and to be able to carry out their studies with success or to noticehow the academic progress depends on self-management and self-regulation; students arenot aware of the necessary commitment level to successfully progress; the level of the courseis too difficult.

n Wrong course choice: a choice that has been not deeply thought out, especially in studentswho enter the university system late, can have channeled decisions towards unsuitablesubjects; lack of information on the higher education can lead to a stereotyped choice ofcourses and/or institutions; students may lack of confidence to change their course orinstitution.

n Economic reasons: students who are not informed of the center’s payment and can acquiredebt; students who have to struggle for sustaining a good level of efficiency in work while theystudy; working more than fifteen hours weekly reduces the possibilities of progression in thestudies; benefits and economic aids that do not arrive in time to cover financial commitments;debt fear; limited funding; unreal expectations towards the lifestyle that students lead whenthey become indebted and soon have to leave their studies.

n Choosing a more attractive opportunity: going to university can lead the student to attaincareer goals without the need of completing the course of study; taking time off from studyto travel; realizing too late academic interests or degree goals.

Finally, and to synthesize the main contributions of this section, we present the entry andgraduation rates in the university education of the countries we have commented on, accordingto the available OCDE data, Spain is also included, which is next analyzed:


> 49

TABLE 6 GRADUATION RATE RELATED TO THE HIGH EDUCATION ENTRY RATE

IN COUNTRIES ANALYZED

UNIVERSITY STUDIES DROP OUTS IN SPAIN

According to the last available data9 (MECD, 2007 and 2008), the Spanish university system has77 universities (50 public and 27 private), five of them are non-presential, and 998 university centers(708 public, 59 associated centers, 97 private associated centers and 134 private universitycenters). In addition, the Spanish university system offers two university centers that are specializedin postgraduate program courses: “Universidad Internacional Menéndez Pelayo” and the“Universidad Internacional de Andalucía”. This offer has meant that during the 2009 course therewas a university center for all of the 48,500 individuals of university age with an average of 19,500students for each center (MECD, 2008).

The data that we next present are related to the graduation rates at university which allow us toknow the percentage of students that finish their studies, and are later complemented by data onstudents who drop out of their studies. This is the current available data from the OCDE and theCRUE 2008 reports.

During the 2007-2008 course, there were almost 1,390,000 students that enrolled in the first andsecond cycle (the forecast for the 2008-2009 course is slightly lower, of 1,366,542), 33,021students enrolled in authorized masters programs and 77,654 students enrolled in doctoral

9 http://web.micinn.es/04_Universidades/02@EstInf/00-Novedades/Datos%20y%20Cifras%20del%20Sistema%20Universitario%20Espanol%20Curso%202008-09.pdf

European territory

Germany

France

United Kingdom

Italy

Spain

UE average (19 countries)

OCDE average

Higher education degree rates

21.2

No data

39.0

39.4

32.9

35.2

37.3

University education entry rate(2006)

35

No data

57

55

43

55

56


50 <

programs10 (see table 7). Of all the enrolled students, only 1% were foreign students, while theaverage of foreign students in the rest of the OCDE countries is of 6,9% (OCDE, 2008).

10 http://web.micinn.es/contenido.asp?menu1=2&menu2=2&dir=04_Universidades/01@General/01-DyCSunE11 http://www.crue.org/export/sites/Crue/Publicaciones/Documentos/UEC/UEC_2008_resumen.pdf

TABLE 7 EVOLUTION OF STUDENTS ENROLLED IN THE FIRST AND SECOND CYCLE

Academic year

1997-1998 2001-2002 2005-2006 (1) 2006-2007 (1) 2007-2008 (1)

Total 1,575,193 1,525,989 1,443,811 1,405,894 1,389,553

Long cycle (2) 1,024,394 947,276 874,139 842,426 827,989Short cycle 550,799 578,713 569,672 563,468 561,564

Type of studies

Social and Juridical Sciences 809,400 749,317 711,788 699,870 704,243Technical 363,093 392,285 380,042 363,580 347,695Humanities 155,668 149,168 132,563 128,753 124,523Health Sciences 111,384 115,692 118,166 119,481 122,071Research Sciences 135,648 119,527 101,252 94,210 91,021

(1) Provisional data.(2) In the long cycle only the second cycle education has been included.

TABLE 8 GRADUATED STUDENTS IN OFFICIAL DEGREE UNIVERSITY STUDIES

BY UNIVERSITIES AND CENTER TYPOLOGIES (2006-2007 ACADEMIC YEAR)11

Presential Non presential Total

Number (%) Number (%) Number (%)

Public 159,996 85.61 5,397 2.89 165,363 88.50

Official centers 146,366 78.33 5,397 2.89 151,763 81.22Affiliated institutions 13,600 7.28 0 0.00 13,600 7.28

Private

Own centers 19,738 10.56 1,756 0.94 21,494 11.50

University centers 179,704 96.17 7,153 3.83 186,857 100.00

Source: La universidad Española en cifras, 2008. CRUE y Datos de Avance. Course 2006-2007. MEC. Elaboration JHA.


> 51

The OCDE (2008) calculates that the percentage of Spanish population (between 25 and 34 years)with university degrees is of 39%, this figure is superior to the average of the European countries(33%) and to the 19 OCDE countries considered (33%).

Although the number of graduates is superior to the average, the graduation or completion ratesare inferior. It is estimated that, since 2004, 32.9% of the Spanish students complete their universityeducation, unlike the average of 37.3% of the population in the OCDE countries and of the 35.2%in Europe (sample among nineteen countries). In 2006, this data was of 25.5% in men and 40.8%in women, while the average of the OCDE is 29.8% and 45.2%, respectively.

The survival rate ― not graduation rate ― in Spain is of 74%, and it is higher than the OCEDaverage which is in 71%. It is necessary to highlight that the proportion of graduates in ExperimentalSciences has increased, but continues to be under the OCDE rate.

Finally, Spain still attracts relatively few international and foreign students regarding the degreeand postgraduate course studies but, nevertheless, the proportion in advance research programsis higher than the majority of the other OCDE countries. 41.9% of the international students areSouth American.

Regarding drop out, the last CRUE report (Hernández, 2008) reveals that during 2006-2007course, 127,396 drop outs were registered in public universities, corresponding to students whoenrolled during 2004-2005 and that have not formalized their enrollment again during the twoposterior courses. From this tally, the enrollment cancelations have been excluded.

However, in spite of the data, we are not able to obtain the global drop out rate in the Spanishuniversity system. However, we can estimate that, excluding the UNED, with a drop out rate of55.2%, the desertion at the different Spanish universities stands between 25% and 29%.

If we notice the data of the CRUE 2007 report (Hernández, 2007), the drop out rates by subjectareas in Spain are: 14.4% in the Arts; 17.7% in short cycles of Social and Juridical Sciences and30.8% in long cycles; 7.5% in Research Sciences; 0.9% in short cycles of Health Sciences and 1.7 % in long cycles; and, finally, 16.3% in short cycles of Technical areas and 10.7% in long cycles.In general, in Spanish universities, the majority of university degrees are long cycle.

Of the total of registered drop outs:

n in 35.5% of the cases students were enrolled in short cycle degrees and the other 64.5% inlong cycle degrees;

n 48.03% corresponds to women and 51.97% to men, even though it is necessary to clarifythat, excluding the degrees in Experimental Sciences, Technical areas, and the rest ofeducational branches (Arts, Social and Juridical Sciences and Health Sciences) the drop outpercentage is higher among women.


52 <

The challenges that the Spanish university system face are the following, according to the OCDE(2007):

n The first challenge is to continue increasing the level of graduates. The proportion in Spain ofpeople who have attained university studies has increased substantially and is above theOCDE average for the group of younger ages. The completion rate among the OCDEcountries has also been increased, but an average of 30% of students enrolled in universityeducation do not complete their curriculum.

n The second challenge is equity. The access to the higher education in Spain, together withIreland, is the most equitable. The proportion of students in Spain who aspire to accessuniversity is next to the OCDE average, but there are important gender differences in theseexpectations.

n The third challenge is to improve the quality levels in initial training so that by its own meanssatisfies the increasing and changing demand of competences in the job market, and toincrease the continued training related to work. In Spain, only 10% of the employees undergocontinued training, the data is substantially lower than for the rest of the OCDE countries.

n Finally, regarding the resources and efficiency challenges, Spain has increased 62% itseducation investment in between 1995 and 2004, but it is still inferior to the OCDE average(4.7% of the GDP of 2004 versus the OCDE’s 5.8%). The student’s expense in highereducation has also increased. Type A higher education enrollment fees in Spain are low, butthere is also a low proportion of students who benefit from public credits or scholarships.

All reports indicate that the decrease of new university enrollments, together with the fact thatstudents can now access the degree chosen in first option, should contribute to a reduction inthe drop out rates and, consequently, lead to an increase in graduation figures. As a consequence,this would have a rebound effect on reducing the average necessary time to graduate.

> 53

3. ANALYSIS OF THE DROP OUT PHENOMENON IN CATALONIA*

INTRODUCTIONThe drop out complexity in higher education, from the point of view of the theoretical models aswell as from the nearest aspects in the measuring of the phenomenon in the internationalpanorama, brings the need to carry out an approach and an analysis of students who do notpersist in their studies in our university context. This analysis of the phenomenon has been carriedout in two research phases in the field study that are presented in this chapter and in the followingone.

The first phase analyzes the drop out phenomenon in Catalonia. From the data collected fromstatistical platform UNEIX, a descriptive population analysis has been made that allows aquantitative approach to the drop out rate and also a qualitative approach on some personal andacademic characteristics of students who gave up their studies at Catalan universities.

In the second phase, an approach on the reality of the students who have given up their studiesat our universities has been carried out through a descriptive and comprehensive study from apilot sample. This second phase in analyzing this phenomenon has helped to distinguish thecauses that have led these students to give up their studies and, at the same time, to collectopinions and suggestions in order to be able to establish retention strategies.

In this way, this chapter carries out an approach to the research problem following aggregatedresults, at a university scale (macro) as well as in a more disintegrated scale, by type of education,in order to find out the profile and the basic characteristics of the students that have given up theiruniversity studies (micro).

We intend delve deep into those factors that can explain or at least shed light on the motives thatlead to drop out in the Catalan university system so as to identify the performance lines andrecommendations in order to guarantee a greater retention at university.

The data base provided by the Catalan University Quality Assurance Agency (AQU)12 gathers dataon the 2005-2006 academic years drop outs of those students that entered university in courses

* The authors of the final version of this chapter have been: Pilar Aparicio, Natalia Jaría, Ernest Pons, Xavier M. Triadóand Màrius Domínguez. 12 In the construction of this data base, the drop out has been considered in the situation in which the student, afterthe last enrolment, has not enrolled himself again in the degree programs in two consecutive years.


54 <

13 Since a student who has already given up the studies can drop out of them again after a re-entry, we can find twoor more records for a same student.

2000-2001 and 2001-2002, with a total of 21,620 drop outs.13 This information is provided by theGeneral Directorate of Universities of the Generalitat de Catalunya coming from the statisticalplatform UNEIX.

DATABASE PRESENTATIONThe information in the data base allows us to analyze the data on two different scales: a macroscale, that compares the drop out rates between different degrees and universities; and a microscale, where we describe the profile and the basic characteristics of the students that have givenup their university studies.

In table 9, we present the main variables of the database that have been analyzed in this research,from a micro scale as well as from a macro scale.

TABLE 9 VARIABLES FROM THE CATALONIA AQU DATABASE

THEM ATIC FIELD VARIABLES

Ex ante

Student’s socio-demographic and social variables AgeGenderNationalityStudies at birthplace Occupations at birthplace

Academic variables previous to the university entry Entry branchA level modalityAccess grade

Degree program that has been dropped-out

Variables of the degree program that has Degree program areabeen dropped-out Does it have an access grade?

University

Performance in the degree program Accumulated passed creditsNumber of years Average of passed credits per year before the drop outEnrolled credits in the drop out year

ANALYSIS OF THE DROP OUT PHENOMENON IN CATALONIA

> 55

THEM ATIC FIELD VARIABLES

Ex post

Post drop out situation Re-entryRe-entry yearDegree program area (same degree program areaas before or area change)Re-entry university (same university or universitychange)

The reading of the former table and its comparison with the theoretical model proposals on theuniversity drop outs (see chaptyer 1) allows us to identify the main limitations of the presentedanalysis regarding the database. A first limitation is related to the variables that have not beencollected in the database, as well as the lack of information on the students that do not drop outof their university studies.

In relation to the collected variables, it is necessary to point out that the database does not provideinformation about certain aspects that the drop out theoretical models point out as fundamental.Among these, we can mention the following:

n Variables of the person that learns: style of learning, school antecedents (academic andinstructive knowledge that the student inherits from former school situations), motivation,vocational maturity, perception of the courses offered and of the curricula, etc.

n Variables that allow for the analysis of the relationships between the student and theinstitution through the feeling of belonging and of membership and in relation to the body ofstudies.

n Institutional variables in relation to the help and the follow-up of students in their studies:pedagogic support, academic work that the graduates have to elaborate, tutorship andcouncil, etc.

n Looking into certain contextual variables that allow us to analyze the student’s situationregarding their employment (combination of the university studies with work activity), materialconditions (scholarships and study aids), geographical conditions, vital changes and socialnetworks of young students.

The second limitation has to do with the control of the information collection: certain variables havea very noticeable percentage no answer (for example, in the variables of student’s home origin,some have percentages of no information around 50-60 %). This lack of information limits in asignificant way the analyses.

The third limitation is that the database that we have worked on only provides information on thestudents that have given up their university studies and it does not allow for comparisons to be


56 <

made in relation to the global enrollment. The fact of not being able to compare their profile andits characteristics with those colleagues who have not given up their studies makes it impossibleto identify the most significant variables in university drop out rates and thus how to establishexplanatory models for the drop out situation.14

In spite of these limitations, it is necessary to appreciate the considerable effort on the collectionof the information and the organization of this same process (combination of several informationsources, collection of the information in several temporary moments, etc) in order to offer a basediagnosis on the drop out situation in Catalonia; it is a process that could hardly have been carriedout without the total implication of the university centers and of their main agents. After mentioningthese considerations, it is necessary to say that for an integral and complete approach to the dropout situation of university studies, it is advisable to further develop these questions.

The database possibilities has allowed us to carry out a macro radiograph, with a comparison ofthe drop out rates between different degrees and universities, and a micro radiograph, on theprofile and the basic characteristics of the students that have given up their university studies.

MACRO SCALE ANALYSIS: REALITY OF A PROBLEMIn Catalonia, according to data coming from the Commissioner for Universities and Researchcorresponding to course 2006-2007, the university system is made up of twelve universities, fiveof them are private, and a total of 225,181 students enrolled in first cycle, of first and second cycle,and of second cycle, with a clear descent in the number of new entry students, explainable bydemographic factors, according to AQU Catalonia (2007).

14 It is necessary to comment that for future researches it would be worthwhile to include secondary data added incertain variables such as the type of degree program, gender, age, etc, should be used in order to be able to comparethe student’s profile of those who have not given up their university education with the students who have dropped-out.


> 57

TABLE 10 STUDENTS IN THE CATALAN UNIVERSITY SYSTEM

Total enrolled students Total new entry students Total graduated students

Course Men Women Total Men Women Total Men Women Total

99-00 101,431 117,572 219,003 24,080 28,264 52,344 13,412 19,526 32,93800-01 103,354 119,364 222,718 23,597 28,606 52,203 13,530 19,716 33,24601-02 105,209 120,581 225,790 25,640 29,665 55,305 14,164 20,056 34,22002-03 105,136 121,504 226,640 25,593 30,197 55,790 13,523 20,165 33,68803-04 105,541 122,026 227,567 26,372 30,868 57,240 13,185 19,138 32,34004-05 105,046 121,322 226,368 25,477 30,456 55,933 14,000 19,372 33,39105-06 104,338 122,745 227,083 26,650 31,741 58,391 12,490 18,571 31,07106-07 103,559 121,622 225,181 25,496 30,458 55,954 12,796 18,781 31,597

Total Catalonia university system(data corresponding to first cycle, of first and second cycle, and to second cycle degrees)

Source: AQU Catalonia (2007). El sistema universitari públic català 2000-2005: una perspectiva des de l’avaluaciód’AQU Catalunya. Barcelona: AQU Catalunya.

In regard to the graduates, despite data according to AQU Catalonia (2007) their number hasdecreased 7.7% during the five consecutive years 2000-2005 representing 11% of the totalgraduates in the Spain during this same five years. This descent in the number of graduates canbe explained by:

n A greater density and difficulty of studies;

n in engineering, the demand to present a final degree project;

n the inadequacy of the student’s profile;

n social, work and personal factors, and

n inadequacy of the teacher’s approach.

In order to fully understand the type of drop out that is produced in our university system, it isnecessary to differentiate the new entry students that enroll in their first option from the rest, since«there is an hypothesis that states that students who access in first option degree are moremotivated and, therefore, will have a higher performance than those that access to their secondor third degree option» (AQU Catalonia, 2007, p 14).

According to data corresponding to the whole of Catalan public universities, during course 2004-2005, 76% of the university students of new entry were enrolled in their first option, and the areaof Social Sciences was the one that presented, in contrast, more enrollments (47%) and demands(48%).


58 <

All the data on student’s drop outs in the Catalan university system that we introduce here arespecified in a detailed way in the following chapter.

In view of this situation, the study shows an radiograph of the dimension of the problem. To carryout this analysis, we focus on the data related to the students that were admitted to Catalanuniversities in courses 2000-2001 and 2001-2002. Thus, we can analyze how many of thesestudents gave up their studies in the three following courses (that is, until 2003-2004,this last oneincluded).

It is necessary to specify that the information on the drop out obtained from the AQU Cataloniadata analysis can not be compared with the data from the CRUE report on Spanish universities,since there is no available data for the studied years, 2000-2001 and 2001-2002. What we doknow is that in the year 2006, of the total drop outs registered at the Spanish public universities,35,5% corresponded to students enrolled in short cycle degrees and the 64,5% remainingcorresponded to long cycle degrees students. In the same year, in Catalonia the figures were of34.1% and of 65.9%, respectively.

In our research, the drop out distribution among the different universities ― average of the shortand long cycles― shows that there are not many differences between universities and that thedrop out affects all the degree programs at different universities. Although the medium drop outrate is 33.6%, the different university rates fluctuate between 28.3% for the UPF (UniversitatPompeu Fabra) and 37.2% for the UPC (Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya) (table 11).

TABLE 11 DROP OUT RATE AT PUBLIC CATALAN UNIVERSITIES

Source: data elaborated by AQU Catalonia from the UNEIX (DIUE) official data.

The comparison among the different degrees is next analyzed.

University Drop out rate

UAB 30.5%UB 34.9%UdG 36.5%UdL 28.6%UPC 37.2%UPF 28.3%URV 33.3%

Total 33.6%


> 59

TABLE 12 DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGE IN THE 2000-2001 AND 2001-2002 GROUPS

TABLE 13 NUMBER OF STUDENTS THAT ACCESSED TO THE DIFFERENT

CATALAN UNIVERSITIES

Drop out distribution by degree typologies

In relation to the type of degree program, the data shows the distribution of the groups from 2000-2001 and 2001-2002, with 40% in the area of Social Sciences, followed by Technical degree areas(29.6%) and Arts (17.2%) (table 12).

To be able to examine the drop out rate correctly, it has to be analyzed as a whole, with thepercentage of enrolled students at each university. If we compare these data with the number ofstudents who accessed each of the universities in courses 2000-2001 and 2001-2002, it is seenthat, obviously, the UB is the university with most drop outs, because it also presents a higherenrolment rate than the rest of universities (table 13).

Frequency Percentage Summed up percentage

Humanities 3,714 17.2 17.2Social Sciences 8,740 40.4 57.6Research Sciences 2,001 9.3 66.9Health Sciences 761 3.5 70.4Technical 6,404 29.6 100.0

Total 21,620 100.0

New entry students Drop out rate

2000-2001 2001-2002

UAB 6,909 20.4% 6,844 20.3% 30.5%UB 11,629 34.3% 11,709 34.7% 34.9%UdG 2,482 7.3% 2,515 7.5% 36.5%UdL 2,035 6.0% 1,810 5.4% 28.6%UPC 5,952 17.6% 5,916 17.5% 37.2%UPF 2,046 6.0% 2,332 6.9% 28.3%URV 2,809 8.3% 2,606 7.7% 33.3%

Total 33,862 100% 33,732 100% 33.6%


60 <

MICRO SCALE ANALYSISThe micro scale research carries out the analysis considering three temporary moments in thestudents trajectory (table 14), that allows us to describe the student’s profile in each moment:

1. Situation at the beginning of the university studies: socio-demographic and social variablesand previous academic variables.

2. Variables on the dropped-out degree program, like the access and the academic performance.

3. Ex post situation, that considers the change of studies and the university re-entry.

TABLE 14 VARIABLES FROM THE AQU CATALONIA DATABASE

Before the drop out (ex ante)

Student’s sociodemographic and social variables AgeGenderNationalityStudies in the origin home Employments in the origin home

Academic variables previous to the university entry Entry branchA level modalityAccess grade

Degree program that has been dropped-out

Variables of the degree program Degree program areathat has been dropped-out Does it have an access grade?

University

Performance in the degree program Accumulated passed creditsNumber of years Average of passed credits per year before thedrop out Enrolled credits in the drop out year

After the drop out (ex post)

Post drop out situation Re-entryRe-entry yearDegree program area (same degree program area as

before or area change)Re-entry university (same university or university change)


> 61

Situation at the beginning of the university studies (before the drop out)

In the dimension of the previous situation before the university studies drop out, we haveinformation referring to sociodemographic and social variables of the students, as well as of prioracademic variables to university entry. If we had information of these variables for all of thestudents, the totality could be compared to the drop out profile.

Socio-demographic and social profile

The socio-demographic profile of the students that give up their university studies does not showclear differentiating features as to age, gender, parent’s studies or employment.

Regarding the drop out distribution according to the age (table 15), we can see how theseproblems affect the different groups of ages.

TABLE 15 DROP OUT PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION BY AGES

In relation to gender we can point out that the drop out affects boys more than girls: 51.4%compared to 48.6%, respectively. If we take into account that there are more girls than boys15 theuniversity drop out is more common in boys. (table 16).

15 The data on registration for the same academic year (2000-2001) for the whole of Catalan university system is of18,569 for women (54.6%) and 15,293 for men (45.2%).

Percentage Summed up percentage

18-20 16.6 16.621 16.5 33.222 13.5 46.623 10.2 56.924-25 15.0 71.926-30 19.1 91.031 i més 9.0 100.0

Total 100.0


62 <

As for the origin home variables, the father’s and the mother’s studies (table 17) and the father’sand the mother’s employment (table 18), the high percentage of no answer (40%) does not allowus to draw clear conclusions. However, it is observed that the drop out does not affect a concretesocial group in a clear way: the sons/daughters of parents with university studies (15.1%) as wellas for those with primary studies (18.1%) are represented.

TABLE 16 DROP OUT PERCENTAGE BY GENDER

TABLE 17 DROP OUT PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION BY THE FATHER’S

AND THE MOTHER’S STUDIES

Frequency Percentage

Men 11,102 51.4Women 10,518 48.6

Total 21,620 100.0

Frequency Percentage Valid percentage

No information 8,798 40.7 49.4Up to primary studies 3,219 14.9 18.1Secondary studies 2,145 9.9 12.0University studies 2,688 12.4 15.1Others 973 4.5 5.5Total 17,823 82.4 100.0No answer 3,797 17.6

Total 21,620 100.0


> 63

TABLE 18 DROP OUT PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION FOR THE FATHER’S

AND THE MOTHER’S STUDIES

TABLE 19 DROP OUT PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION BY STUDENT’S ACCESS BRANCH

Academic variables prior to university entry

As for the academic variables of the students prior to entry at university, we have informationregarding the origin branch, high school modality and the access grade.

The origin branch of the students that give up their degrees indicates that the main access profileto the university corresponds to students coming from A levels and from vocational training. Thisis not unusual at all, given that the main access itinerary and that proportionally there are morestudents that access from A levels than from vocational training schools (table 19).


No information 8,993 41.6No answer 3,797 17.6Others 2,485 11.5Medium services technician 2,450 11.3High head-technician 2,231 10.3Medium technician other sectors 1,240 5.7No degree 424 2.0

Total 21,620 100.0


A-level; high school degree 12,921 59.8%Vocational training 2,271 10.5%Above 25 years of age 1 0.0%Graduated 839 3.9%No information 5,588 25.8%

Total 21,620 100.0%


64 <

The analysis of the high school degree modality provides relevant information (table 20). The datashows that among the total of students that give up their studies, there are two very significantgroups: the students that have done the selectivity (university entrance examination) out ofCatalonia (with a 18.4% drop out rate) and for students whom we do not have information becauseit comes from transfers (29%).

TABLE 20 DROP OUT PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION BY HIGH SCHOOL MODALITY

We can take note as an hypothesis that we are dealing with students that were in Cataloniatemporarily or that came to Catalonia to start university studies and that probably after some timechanged of residence and, therefore, dropped-out of the Catalan university system; but theavailable data does not allow us to go beyond this. However, since we are talking about nearlyhalf of the students who drop out of university (18.4% + 29 %), it is significant enough to take intoconsideration and further scrutinize this data.

We can not have available data on the number of students who are out of the Catalan system andthat enroll in university, to be able to ascertain, if the previous data is correlated with student dropout or if these students return to their origin or nearby to finish their degree, as in the case ofPortuguese students enrolled in a degree in medicine.

From the rest of the students, we can see how the students that have done their A-level in Artsand Social Sciences (17.2%) and in Nature and Health Sciences (11.3%) and the students thatcome from a vocational training / 25 years and older / graduates (14.4%) represent the main dropout collectives. This behavior is predictable if we consider that one of the branches with thegreatest drop out at university is Social Sciences and that the majority of high school students ofthis modality are enrolled in Social Sciences degree programs.

Ultimately, the information on the access grade to enter the university allows us to check out howdrop outs are not influenced in this sense. The idea that students with lower access grades are


Art 157 0.7%Nature and Health Sciences 2,446 11.3%Humanities and Social Sciences 3,715 17.2%Technology 1,856 8.6%Selectivity out of Catalonia 3,979 18.4%Others (GCE A-level studies, foreigners with selectivity...) 81 0.4%With no information because of transfer 6,275 29.0%No applicable (Vocational training, +25, graduates) 3,111 14.4%

Total 21,620 100.0%


> 65

more likely to drop out of their studies is false: students with notes between 5 and 6 drop out ofuniversity the same as students with notes between 6 and 7.

TABLE 21 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION ON DROP OUT BASED ON ENTRY NOTE

DROP OUT RATES IN STUDY PROGRAMS In this section we focus on those variables that allow us to analyze the information related to thedegree programs that have been abandoned, as well as the academic performance (in relation tothe credits passed) of the students in the university studies before leaving them.16

Degrees comparison

If the we make a comparison between the different degree programs offered by the Catalan publicuniversities, we can find important differences regarding drop out distribution that goes from 4.4%as the minimum value up to a maximum value of 87.5%. In relation to these rates, however, it isnecessary to highlight that degrees that are being compared have different number of new entrystudents and very different characteristics (such as the access note, degree access, full/part-time,schedules...). However, the majority is distributed among 20% and 60% (graph 3).

16 It must be taken into account that the aggregated analyses are carried out by degrees and universities, as weshow in the macro scale analysis section.

Frequency Percentage Valid percentage

A 5 access grade 4,122 19.1 27.6Between a 5 and 6 access note 5,012 23.2 33.6Between a 6 and 7 access grade 4,184 19.4 28.1More than a 7 access note 1,590 7.4 10.7Total 14,908 69.0 100.0System 6,712 31.0

Total 21,620 100.0


66 <

Table 23 shows the drop out rate of degrees independent of the university.17The five qualificationswith a minor drop out percentage are Podiatry, Physiotherapy, Veterinary Science, Early ChildhoodEducation and Oenology. In contrast, the degrees with a higher drop out percentage arePortuguese Philology, Romance Philology, Arab Philology, Public Administration and Management,and Diploma in Maritime Navigation.

Next we show a comparative table (table 22) with the drop out distribution of five different degrees.It is based on degree selection in order to carry out an exhaustive research: BusinessAdministration and Management, Biology, Computer Engineering, History and Medicine (theselection of these specific degrees is justified in the following chapter).

17 The intention of this table is not to make a ranking of degrees with a rate of higher drop out, but to show thevariability between them.

GRAPH 3 DROP OUT RATE

20

15

10

5

0

Drop out rate (degrees)

Number of degree

0.00% 15.00% 36.00% 54.00% 72.00% 90.00%


> 67

TABLE 22 MAIN DATA ON FIVE SELECTED DEGREES

* Data referred to course 2000-2001.** Average in courses from 2000-2001 to 2005-2006.*** Data referred to course 2005-2006.**** It refers to the whole Catalan university system.

TABLE 23 DROP OUT DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGE BY DEGREES

WITH UNIVERSITY INDEPENDENCE

Business Management and Administration 29.3%Social and Cultural Anthropology 42.9%Architecture 22.7%Technical Architecture 24.6%Fine Arts 27.3%Information and Documentation 28.8%Biology 28.2%Biochemistry 15.4%Actuarial and Financial Sciences 39.4%Environmental Sciences 12.7%Business studies 32.9%Statistic Sciences and Techniques 48.8%Food Sciences and Technologies 22.7%Business management and Administration 26.7%Audiovisual Communication 19.7%Diploma in Naval Machines 39.1%Diploma in Maritime Navigation 63.6%Documentation 27.8%Law 41.5%Economics 29.5%Social Education 22.4%Agricultural Engineering 21.3%Industrial Electronics and Automatic Control Engineering 39.3%Channels and Ports Engineering 51.7%Electronic Engineering 43.6%Forest Engineering 20.0%Geological Engineering 63.2%Industrial Engineering 38.8%Computer Engineering 44.1%

Drop out New Enrolled Average Performance Accessrate* entry* credits** age** rate*** grade**

Business Adm. And Man. 28% 1,770 64 22 65% 6.1Biology 29% 847 66 21 68% 6.3Computer Engineering 38% 834 63 22 62% 5.7History 43% 837 63 26 65% 5.0Medicine 16% 768 76 21 85% 7.5

Total**** 34% 33,862 63 23 69% 5.9


68 <

TABLE 23 DROP OUT DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGE BY DEGREES WITH UNIVERSITY

INDEPENDENCE (CONTINUATION FROM PREVIOUS PAGE)

Material Engineering 44.8%Engineering in Industrial Organization 36.8%Chemical Engineering 31.5%Agricultural Technical Engineering (Farm Exploitations) 47.8%Agricultural Technical Engineering (Hortofructicult. and Gardening) 28.2%Agricultural Technical Engineering (Agricultural and Food industries) 32.1%Agricultural Technical Engineering (Rural Mecanitz. and Constr.) 60.9%Technical Forest Engineering (Forest Industries) 55.9%Technical Industrial Engineering (Electricity) 38.1%Technical Industrial Engineering (Industrial Electronics) 47.5%Technical Industrial Engineering (Mechanical) 36.1%Technical Industrial Engineering (Chemistry) 36.6%Technical Industrial Engineering (Textile) 23.1%Technical Engineering on Computer Management 46.6%Technical Engineering on Computer Systems 46.9%Mining Engineering 27.3%Technical Naval Engineering (Propulsion and Services) 47.9%Technical Engineering on Public Buildings 44.0%Technical Telecommunications Engineering. (Electronic systems) 45.5%Technical Telecommunications Engineering (Telecom. systems) 22.2%Technical Telecommunications Engineering (Telematics) 23.8%Technical Topography Engineering 37.7%Telecommunications Engineering 32.0%Oenology 12.5%Statistics 46.3%Pharmacy 14.4%Hebrew Philology 57.1%German Philology 58.2%English Philology 41.0%Arab Philology 70.4%Catalan Philology 43.4%Classical Philology 61.8%Slavic Philology 61.1%French Philology 51.2%Galician Philology 62.5%Hispanic Philology 44.8%Italian Philology 56.5%Portuguese Philology 87.5%Romance Philology 72.7%Philosophy 57.7%Physics 55.6%Physiotherapy 6.3%Geography 41.2%Public Management and Administration 64.5%History 47.0%Art History 45.8%Music History and Sciences 48.1%Humanities 39.6%Nursing 15.0%Market Research and Technics 30.9%Linguistics 44.9%Degree on Naval Machinery 22.0%Degree in Nautical Studies and Maritime Transportation 18.5%Speech Therapy 18.3%


> 69

TAULA 23 DROP OUT DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGE BY DEGREES WITH UNIVERSITY

INDEPENDENCE (CONTINUATION FROM PREVIOUS PAGE)

Mathematics 47.8%Medicine 16.4%Teacher of Special Education 18.3%Physical Education Teacher 21.0%Teacher of Early Childhood 10.4%Music Teacher 35.7%Teacher of Primary Education 17.5%Teacher of Foreign Language 31.3%Odontology 14.5%Optics and Optometry 30.1%Pedagogy 36.3%Journalism 15.4%Podiatry 4.4%Psychology 27.8%Psychopedagogy 29.0%Advertising and Public Relations 20.0%Chemistry 43.9%Labor Relations 30.5%Sociology 42.7%Literary Theory and Comparative Literature 55.7%German Translation and Interpreting 27.9%English Translation and Interpreting 18.2%French Translation and Interpreting 27.8%Animal Science and health 9.4%

Performance in the dropped-out studies

The data shows that almost 58% of the students that drop out of the university studies mainly do itduring the first year of the degree, 23% after two courses and 19% in the third or fourth year from thebeginning of the university studies (table 24). This gives an average time at university of a little morethan one year and a half, precisely 1. 66 years, before leaving studies.

TABLE 24 DROP OUT DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGE BY NUMBER OF STUDIED

ACADEMIC YEARS

Frequency Percentage Accumulated percentage

One course 12,484 57.7 57.7Two courses 5,024 23.2 81.0Three courses 3,021 14.0 95.0Four courses 1,091 5.0 100.0

Total 21,620 100.0


70 <

If we analyze the number of years studied segmented by universities (table 25), we can confirmthat the first year is critical, however, we do not observe differences between universities.

TABLE 25 DROP OUT DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGE BY THE NUMBER OF STUDIED YEARS

BY UNIVERSITY

We do not observe major differences (table 26) between types of degrees; what is outstanding isthat the majority of students who drop out of technical studies do it during the first year (61%). A possible explanation to this phenomenon is the difficulty of passing the first course of the UPC(technical studies) because of their permanence rules.

TABLE 26 DROP OUT DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGE BY NUMBER OF STUDIED YEARS

AND BY KNOWLEDGE AREA

Table 27 is an account of the information related to the student’s performance in the studies thathe/she drops out of as to the enrolled and passed credits.

The data shows that the students that give up their studies have enrolled to an average of 54.5credits and have passed an average of 38.3 of the degree in which he/she leaves. If we take intoaccount that a «type» bachelor’s degree includes 300 credits and that the desirable performancein a university student is to complete between 65 and 70 credits per academic year, we can affirmthat the performance of a student that drops out of university is rather low.

UAB UB UdG UdL UPC UPF URV Total

One course 56% 55% 60% 60% 59% 63% 67% 58%Two courses 24% 24% 23% 19% 27% 16% 16% 23%Three courses 14% 15% 12% 15% 11% 15% 13% 14%Four courses 6% 6% 4% 6% 3% 6% 4% 5%

Humanities Experim. Social Technical Health TotalSciences Sciences Sciences

One course 57.8% 52.1% 56.7% 61.0% 56.6% 57.7%Two courses 20.8% 27.2% 22.7% 24.2% 22.2% 23.2%Three courses 15.5% 15.6% 14.9% 11.2% 15.1% 14.0%Four courses 5.9% 5.0% 5.7% 3.6% 6.0% 5.0%


> 71

TABLE 27 AVERAGE ENROLLED AND EARNED CREDITS AT THE DROP OUT MOMENT

TABLE 28 AVERAGE NUMBER OF ENROLLED AND PASSED CREDITS AT THE DROP OUT

MOMENT BY DEGREE AREAS

However, these general data on the student’s performance are different according to the type ofdegree that is abandoned (table 28).

From all the degree areas, the Health Sciences is the one with a higher average of studied creditsper year before the drop out, followed by Arts, Social Sciences, Experimental Sciences and, finally,the Technical degrees area.

The students who drop out of university with a lower academic performance are concentrated inthe Technical area of degrees (52.5 enrolled credits the year that they give up their studies with26.6 accumulated passed credits in that same year), followed by the Experimental Sciencesdegrees (52.6 and 37.6, respectively). The Sciences of Health degrees are those degrees in whichthe students that give up their studies have a higher number of enrolled and accumulated passedcredits in the drop out year (62.4 and 62.2, respectively).

Average studied Enrolled credits Accumulated passedcredits by year prior in the drop out credits in the

to the drop out course drop out course

Humanities 23.62 56.43 45.62Social Sciences 22.04 54.95 41.87Experimental Sciences 18.80 52.68 37.66Health Sciences 34.47 62.42 62.27Technical 14.43 52.40 26.80

Total 20.20 54.50 38.39

Enrolled credits Accumulative credits Average numberin the current earned in current of credits earned

course drop out course drop out before drop out

Average 54.50 38.39 20.20Standard deviation 20.24 53.61 27.78Minimum 0.00 0.00 0.00Maximum 135.00 522.00 409.50


72 <

POST DROP OUT SITUATIONIt is necessary to consider the student’s post situation after they drop out their studies in theanalysis of the university drop out situation. The database worked on only shows informationrelated to the existence of re-entry to another degree. This data allows us to know if we are talkingabout a university drop out or a re-orientation in the academic trajectory.

The results show that almost 63% of the students who have given up their studies do not re-enterinto another degree and, therefore, completely gives up the university studies (table 29).

TABLE 29 DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGE ON STUDENT’S THAT RE-ENTRY UNIVERSITY

Taking into account the importance of the drop out proportion on those students who have satthe selectivity exam in Catalonia or that have accessed the Catalan university system by transfers,we have to be very careful interpreting the re-entry data, since probably an important part of thesestudents continue with their university studies outside of Catalonia (and, therefore, they turn upas no re-entry in the Catalonian AQU’s database).

The data confirm (table 30) that these students (transfers and selectivity outside of Catalonia) iswhat shows a higher percentage of no re-entry (about 80%), which would reinforce the hypothesisthat these students go back to their origin place. It would be interesting to verify this hypothesis innearby studies and that, therefore, this can be the drop out reason. The rest of students showmuch higher re-entry rates in another degrees; the students of the Technical and Health Sciencesarea degrees stand out with, 65.7% and 59.8%, respectively, by their re-entry in another degree.The students of the Arts are in a totally contrary situation since almost 76% of them do not re-enteruniversity.


No re-entry 13,564 62.7 62.7Re-entry 8,056 37.3 100.0

Total 21,620 100.0


> 73

TABLE 31 YEARS THAT TAKE TO RE-ENTRY AFTER DROPPING OUT

TABLE 30 DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS THAT RE-ENTRY UNIVERSITY

BY THEIR ORIGIN A-LEVEL MODALITY

It is probable that some of these drop outs are caused by the so-called «culture» that exists insome of these branches (e.g. Art) from the idea of starting to work before finishing the studies.

Regarding the years that it takes for a student to re-enter the university after he/she has given upthe studies, in table 31 we observe that it is about a year for the majority (25.7%). This data bringsup the hypothesis that maybe these students did not access the right option and had to wait acourse in order to be able to change towards the desired degree. However, there is almost 63%of students for which it is not known when they re-enter, if they ever do.

Re-entry indicator Total

No re-entry Re-entry No re-entry

Arts 75.8% 24.2% 100.0%Health Sciences 40.2% 59.8% 100.0%Humanities 53.5% 46.5% 100.0%Technology 34.3% 65.7% 100.0%Selectivity out of Catalonia 65.5% 34.5% 100.0%Others (GCE A-level studies, 82.7% 17.3% 100.0%foreigners with selectivity...)With no information because of transfer 74.5% 25.5% 100.0%No applicable (vocational training, 80.0% 20.0% 100.0%+25, graduates)

Total 62.7% 37.3% 100.0%


Valid 0 643 3.0 3.01 5,550 25.7 28.62 682 3.2 31.83 801 3.7 35.54 297 1.4 36.95 83 0.4 37.3

Not aplicable 13,564 62.7 100.0

Total 21,620 100.0


74 <

The degree areas that readmit more students are Experimental Sciences and Health Sciencesareas. On the other hand, the degree areas that have a lower re-entry are Technical and SocialSciences, collected in table 32.

TABLE 32 RE-ENTRY DEGREE AREA

Finally, if we stop and examine the universities that have the most re-entered students (table 33),the UB counts the largest percentage of students, while at the other extreme the UdL has just1.5% of students who return there to study.

TABLE 33 RE-ENTRY UNIVERSITY

If we analyze the degrees with the most re-entries (table 34) , 40% of these take place in thefollowing type of degrees: Information and Communication, Teachers, Production AdvancedTechnologies, Business and Occupational.


Valid Humanities 1,010 4.7 4.7Experimental sciences 3,428 15.9 20.5

Social Sciences 635 2.9 23.5Technical 337 1.6 25.0

Health Sciences 2,646 12.2 37.3Not applicable 13,564 62.7 100.0

Total 21,620 100.0


UAB 1,426 6.6 6.6UB 2,679 12.4 19.0UPC 1,788 8.3 27.3UPF 442 2.0 29.3UdG 721 3.3 32.6UdL 321 1.5 34.1URV 679 3.1 37.3Not applicable 13,564 62.7 100.0

Total 21,620 100.0


> 75


BY THEIR RE-ENTRY DEGREE

Table 35 shows the crossover between the degree area that is dropped out and the area in whichis re-entered. This table allows us to analyze the degree area changes. The results show that SocialSciences and Technical areas are internal drop out between degrees (about 80%). That is, thestudents that give up a degree in these areas re-enter another degree in the same area. Therefore,there is little mobility between Social Sciences and Technical areas.


507 Information and Communication Technical Area 877 10.9210 Teachers 752 9.3505 Production Advanced Technologies Technical Area 683 8.5202 Business 552 6.9204 Occupational 510 6.3201 Economy and Business Management and Administration 444 5.5101 Geography and History Area 388 4.8203 Law 343 4.3302 Nature and Biology 286 3.6508 Communication and Information Area 255 3.2205 Politics 231 2.9501 Architechture 212 2.6208 Psychology 211 2.6102 Philosophy and Humanities 195 2.4506 Production Advanced Technologies Area 194 2.4502 Technical Civil Engineering 173 2.1105 Philology 2 162 2.0401 Sanitary graduates 149 1.8666 Universities own degrees 147 1.8104 Philology 1 146 1.8509 Agricultural Technical Area 143 1.8206 Comunication 135 1.7303 Physics and Mathematics 134 1.7402 Medicine and Odontology 115 1.4211 Tourism 104 1.3209 Education studies 99 1.2301 Chemistry 92 1.1504 Nautical Area 54 0.7108 Fine Arts 51 0.6207 Documentation 46 0.6403 Pharmacy and Food Science and Technology 38 0.5106 Philology 3 35 0.4103 Comparative studies 29 0.4503 Civil Engineering 29 0.4511 Aeronautics area 16 0.2404 Animal Science and Health 13 0.2510 Agricultural area 9 0.1555 Double degrees 4 0.0Total 8,056 100.088 Not applicable 13,564

Total 21,620


76 <

However, the data from the Arts and Health Sciences areas show that half of the ones that dropout of them, re-enter university but changing area. In the case of the students that give up an Artsstudy, either stays in the same area or re-enters a Social Sciences degree (43%). In the case ofHealth Sciences, half of the ones that give up the studies and re-enter, stay in the same area orpass to a Social Sciences degree (almost 30%) or to studies in the Technical degree area (10%approximately).

The Experimental Sciences area is the one that has a major re-entry in other degree areas: only32.7% of those that give up this area re-enters a degree in the same area. The re-entry in SocialSciences and Technical degrees area is highlighted (29% and 21%, respectively).


BY ORIGIN DEGREE AND RE-ENTRY GRADE

Knowledge area Re-entry degree area

Humanities Social Experim. Health Technical TotalSciences Sciences Sciences

Humanities Recount 553 458 13 12 30 1,066% by row 51.9% 43.0% 1.2% 1.1% 2.8% 100.0%

% by column 55.0% 13.4% 2.5% 3.8% 1.1% 13.5%

Social Sciences Recount 333 2,178 37 51 96 2,695% by row 12.4% 80.8% 1.4% 1.9% 3.6% 100.0%

% by column 33.1% 63.6% 7.2% 16.2% 3.7% 34.2%

Experimental Sciences Recount 64 273 309 101 199 946% by row 6.8% 28.9% 32.7% 10.7% 21.0% 100.0%

% by column 6.4% 8.0% 60.4% 32.1% 7.6% 12.0%

Health Sciences Recount 12 76 23 118 26 255% by row 4.7% 29.8% 9.0% 46.3% 10.2% 100.0%

% by column 1.2% 2.2% 4.5% 37.5% 1.0% 3.2%

Technical Recount 44 442 130 33 2,278 2,927% by row 1.5% 15.1% 4.4% 1.1% 77.8% 100.0%

% by column 4.4% 12.9% 25.4% 10.5% 86.6% 37.1%

Total Recount 1,006 3,427 512 315 2,629 7,889% by row 12.8% 43.4% 6.5% 4.0% 33.3% 100.0%

% by column 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%


> 77

Attempting to give an answer to the question of whether the re-entry shows a significant relationwith the modality of high school modality and, therefore, if a student’s re-orientation in the studyareas can be observed, in table 36 we present this data crossover.

The results show that this study re-orientation phenomenon does not occur. We only detect thatin the case of the Nature and Health Sciences high school modality an important percentage ofstudents re-enter in the Technical area (19.3%). What we observe in the rest of the cases is achange of degrees in the same area.


BY RE-ENTRY DEGREE AND PRIOR HIGH SCHOOL MODALITY

Finally, table 37 shows the re-entry results according to the university where the student re-entersand the change or maintenance of university.

The data show that the University of Barcelona is the one that receives more student drop out re-entries. The UB, in particular, is a receiver of a quite important percentage (half) of those that hadstarted the studies at the University Pompeu Fabra.

High school modality Re-entry degree area

Humanities Social Experim. Health Technical TotalSciences Sciences Sciences

Vocational training not applicable 27,8% 26,7% 18,2% 18,4% 22,7% 24,6%No information 22,2% 17,3% 23,8% 21,0% 21,4% 19,9%Arts 2,2% 0,4% 0,5%Nature and Health Sciences 6,5% 12,8% 49,8% 56,8% 19,3% 18,3%Humanities and Social Sciences 39,5% 36,8% 0,8% 3,8% 0,6% 21,4%Technology 1,9% 6,0% 7,4% 36,0% 15,3%

Total 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%


78 <

TABLE 37 DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS THAT RE-ENTER UNIVERSITY

BY DROP OUT UNIVERSITY AND RE-ENTRY UNIVERSITY

IN SYNTHESISOn this final note, we present a synthesis of the main appraisal related, firstly, to the student dropout profile at university, while noticing its academic and personal aspects, and, secondly the typeof studies that the student has dropped-out of. Ultimately, we focus on the main databaselimitations.

Re-entry university

UB UAB UPC UPF UdG UdL URV Total

UB Recount 1,485 266 198 144 126 34 62 2,315% university of the drop out degree 64.1% 11.5% 8.6% 6.2% 5.4% 1.5% 2.7% 100.0%

UAB Recount 415 716 89 60 77 26 43 1,426% university of the drop out degree 29.1% 50.2% 6.2% 4.2% 5.4% 1.8% 3.0% 100.0%

UPC Recount 306 245 1,397 103 50 18 43 2,162% university of the drop out degree 14.2% 11.3% 64.6% 4.8% 2.3% 0.8% 2.0% 100.0%

UPF Recount 273 81 28 126 13 6 12 539% university of the drop out degree 50.6% 15.0% 5.2% 23.4% 2.4% 1.1% 2.2% 100.0%

UdG Recount 98 59 34 1 438 9 10 649% university of the drop out degree 15.1% 9.1% 5.2% 0.2% 67.5% 1.4% 1.5% 100.0%

UdL Recount 33 27 18 3 9 216 23 329% university of the drop out degree 10.0% 8.2% 5.5% 0.9% 2.7% 65.7% 7.0% 100.0%

URV Recount 69 32 24 5 8 12 486 636% university of the drop out degree 10.8% 5.0% 3.8% 0.8% 1.3% 1.9% 76.4% 100.0%

Total Recount 2,679 1,426 1,788 442 721 321 679 8,056% university of the drop out degree 33.3% 17.7% 22.2% 5.5% 8.9% 4.0% 8.4% 100.0%


> 79

Student Drop out Profile

Personal aspects

The university studies drop outs affect girls and boys of different age groups almost in the sameway. However, in our context, the student drop outs can not be related to the level of studies orwith parents employment. In this sense, the sociodemographic profile of the students is not adetermining factor in the drop out phenomena. What we can state is that there is almost 3% moredrop outs in boys than in girls.

More than half of the students who give up their studies drop out during the first year. Thiscorroborates what other research has made evident: that it is necessary to pay special attentionto students in the first year at university and to promote specific retention strategies. The averagetime that a student who drops out stays at university is a little more than a year and a half.

The OCDE’s 2007 report sustains that starting and not finishing a university study program doesnot necessarily mean failure if the student benefits from the time dedicated in the program to beable to go to another program at an inferior level. In many cases, not achieving a degree does notmean that the acquired skills and competences are lost and not valued in the job market. Thereport explains the case of Canada, where a year of studies can bring attractive job opportunitiesto the students.

In our context, one reason which may explain this situation after the first year can be that thestudents can access their first choice option rather than the available option. Regarding the typeof education, it is necessary to highlight a higher drop out percentage in the first university year oftechnical studies. This aspect should consider the processes and mechanisms of academicpromotion that the different study programs and universities regulate.

Academic aspects

The greater number of drop outs are concentrated in students who accessed university from highschool while there are fewer drop outs who come from second degree vocational training and thehigher vocational degrees. This data is not unusual at all if we consider that these are the mostcommon ways to access university. On the other hand, drop outs percentages are morepronounced in students that went through selectivity in other autonomous communities and inthose that have transferred. This should promote student’s mobility and student exchanges, giventhat these students can continue studying in the communities where they came from. Even so,we don’t have data that completely confirms this conjecture.

Referring to the relation between the different academic branches, the students who drop out oftheir studies come from Arts and Social Sciences, as well as from the professional training and ofthe university entrance examination for those over 25+ years of age. The access grade is notconsidered a relevant data that helps to explain the university drop out.


80 <

The student who drops out of his/her studies usually has a low academic performance: the creditsthat he/she passes are more or less half of those necessary to be considered a student with anoptimum academic performance. In relation to the type of study the students that drop out ofTechnical and Experimental Sciences degree areas are those that have a lower number of passedcredits. This situation is not the same in Health Sciences degrees where students have a higheracademic performance.

Ultimately, regarding the possibilities to re-enter other university studies in Catalonia, the analysisshows that more than 60% of the students that drop out of their studies in 2000-2001 have notre-entered the university system. This does not mean that it is not likely that a percentage of thesestudents continue their studies out of the Catalan university area, although we do not have datathat corroborate it. The higher number of students that do not re-enter university are concentratedamong those that took the selectivity tests out of Catalonia or that moved there. On the otherhand, the majority of students that re-enter the university system are those that dropped out ofTechnical and Health Sciences degree areas.

Type of studies with higher drop out rates

All the Catalan universities are faced with the drop out problem by a certain number of students.There are not many differences between the universities regarding the drop out rate that stands atan average of 33.6%. If we set up a ranking, 37% student drop outs are from the UPC, followed bythe UB, the UAB and, lastly, the UdL with a 28% drop out rate. These data are relative because theuniversities with a more absolute number of drop outs are those that have a higher enrollment rate.

The differences are clearer according to different degree choices. The drop out rates by degreechoice oscillate between 20% and 60%, and can be increased a bit more in some engineeringcourses or diminished in less traditional studies like Oenology or Physiotherapy which presentvery low drop out rates. We must keep in mind that the degrees can be vary greatly as for disciplinetypology, education and learning culture, number of students or student/teacher ratio, facilities,student support, etc, and that different levels of satisfaction show, motivation and academic quality,can be crucial drop out factors. Some of the studies that have a higher drop out number are inorder of importance: the degree areas of Social Sciences, Technical and Arts, although it isnecessary to recognize the wide range of degrees in each area.

Data limitations

The analysis of the results of this research allows us to demonstrate the concern that the entireuniversity system, individual universities, faculties and degrees have on drop out rates throughresearch processes which are vital in order to develop measures to fight this phenomenon. Theresearch limitations are related to the insufficient indicators or variables that allow us to relate thedrop out causes in a more significant way, and the lack of possibilities to compare these data with


> 81

the global enrollment data. For these reasons, the research results can only generally point outthe profile of student who drops out and the percentages and the studies typology of the degreeprogrammes that they dropped-out of. Nevertheless, it is interesting to know what happens withthe students that re-enter, although we can only count those that re-enter in the Catalan universitysystem.

We consider it necessary to develop new instruments that allow us to measure the drop out ratein all its complexity; in other words, it is necessary to collect data linked to: a) other academicvariables like the learning processes and learning pace, the academic trajectory, the receivedorientation, the study motivation, the evaluation of the studies done, etc; b) variables on therelationship between the student and the institution and its implication on the drop out; c)institutional variables such as the academic support and the student’s orientation, and d) variablesof a personal nature such as employment and the student’s economic situation and socialization,among other issues. These data would allow for a delve deeper into the causes for dropping outin order to search for new and more effective solutions to this problem.

> 83

4. THE SEARCH FOR AN EXPLANATION: DESCRIPTIVE RESEARCH ON THE

DROP-OUTS IN CATALAN UNIVERSITIES*

INTRODUCTIONAs we previously commented, the statistical exploitation of the AQU’s Catalonia database has aseries of limitations which are necessary to compensate with further in depth studies. To this end,a further main objectives of this work is to propose some validated and reliable instruments thatallow the study the university drop out in all its complexity. This chapter intends to experiment witha proposal of instruments that offer the opportunity to know which student variables or factorsaffect in a real way the decision to not continue studying so as to take them into account in theelaboration of prevention and/or correction proposals for institutional measures.

DESCRIPTIVE AND INTEGRAL RESEARCHThanks to the database provided by AQU Catalonia, we have obtained some useful results in orderto describe some characteristic features and a first profile of the students that drop out of theirstudies at Catalan universities. From this point, and with the objective of facilitating the knowledgeof the phenomenon, we have carried out fieldwork that complements the conclusions obtained inthe first analysis of the profile and the performance of this student’s collective and that addspersonal elements in understanding the causes underlying this academic situation. This preliminaryand exploratory research, of descriptive and integral character, includes quantitative and qualitativeelements from the methodological point of view in the data collection phase. During the periodfrom September to December 2008, we have carried out exhaustive telephone surveys andinterviews to students who have dropped-out of their studies and who started during 2000-2001and 2001-2002 academic years.

The chapter provides a synthesis of the results obtained through the surveys and the descriptiveresearch of qualitative character. In first place, we provide a methodological description of thework that we have carried out which is followed by a presentation of the results obtained, stressingon the drop out causes, the academic factors (previous orientation, motive for choosing the degree

*The authors of the final version of the chapter have been: Pilar Aparicio, Natalia Jaría, Mercè Torrado, Pilar Figuera,Xavier M. Triadó, Ernest Pons, José Luis Muñoz, Marita Navarro, Mònica Feixas, David Rodríguez and Joaquín Gairín.


84 <

program, degree difficulties, etc) and variables related to the social integration in accordance withthe drop out typology. Finally, we reflect on the limitations that we have detected in this pilot studyin order to consider them in later research and offer some initial conclusions.

FIGURE 3 FIELD STUDY PHASES

PHASE ISurvey study

SURVEYtelephonic

PHASE IIIntegral study IN DEPTH INTERVIEW Selection of a subsample of

students

DESCRIPTIVE STUDY INSTRUMENT USED

FIELD STUDY

DESCRIBE THE UNIVERSITY DROP-OUT PHENOMENON

SOURCE INFORMATION

Pilot sample from the total dropout students

Information collection instrumentsThe bibliographical revision carried out has brought up the nonexistence of a standardized systemthat allows the study and the knowledge of the causes that lead a student in a determinate momentto decide not to continue with the started university studies. Although it is true that concreteexperiences have turned up in Spain associated with certain university typologies of opencharacter like the UNED where, logically, the desertion or the drop out is a clear indicator of aworrying institutional failure, these experiences are not under any circumstances directly applicableto the rest of universities.

For this reason, we have created a survey model and an interview script (see appendix 1 and 2)that enclose all the theoretical variables that the different theoretical models consider relevant forthe explanation of the university studies drop out.

Picture 2 illustrates the collected information and its level of analysis:

THE SEARCH FOR AN EXPLANATION: DESCRIPTIVE RESEARCH ON THE DROP-OUTS IN CATALAN UNIVERSITIES

> 85

PICTURE 2 ANALYSIS LEVEL IN THE FIELD STUDY

MOMENT

Pre-drop outaspects(ex ante)

During thestudies

In the drop outmoment

DIMENSIONS

Personal andfamily background

Academicbackground

Motivations

Academic data

Economic data

Academicintegration

Social integration

Satisfaction

Personal situation

Academic situation

Motivations

INTERVIEWINFORMATION

Information and activitieslinked to the university choice

Orientation actions anduseful tutorships for theuniversity incorporation

University and studies choicereasons

University studiesexpectations

The most useful aids offeredby the university

Main changes and difficultiesat university that lead to thedrop out

The difficulties found whenstudying

University external reasonsthat contribute on thestudies drop out

VARIABLES OF THE SURVEY

Personal: gender, age, marital status

Family: studies and parent’semployement

Center typology where the studentcomes from, access way, averagegrade between the access studiesand the access grade

Degree preference, orientation whenchoosing, criteria of degree choice(academic, occupational, others)

Degree, university, course andstudy shift

Type of financing: scholarships,work and relation with the studies

Study dedication: type of student,class attendance, non-attendancemotives, hours of study

Motivations: satisfaction with theinitial expectations, studies utility,motivation to finish

Assessment of the integration inthe academic life

Relationships with equals,attendance to social activities

Academic dimensions: takensubjects, teachers, quality of theclasses, curriculum and teacher’splannings, tutorships

Services dimensions: library,cafeteria, reprographics, classromsequipment, laboratory, professionalpractice, study classrooms, sportactivities, campus, social activities

Age, family and labor situation

Course, semester and shift

Number of permanence years atuniversity, number of passed credits

Main drop out reason


86 <

PICTURE 2 ANALYSIS LEVEL IN THE FIELD STUDY (CONTINUATION FROM PREVIOUS PAGE)

MOMENT DIMENSIONS INTERVIEWINFORMATION

VARIABLES OF THE SURVEY

Post-drop outaspects (ex post)

Employmentsituation

Academic situation

Re-entry intentions

Aids and resources neededto continue the studies

Ideas to improve the degreeprogram and the learningprocess

Conditions under which onewould be able

Employment situation, studiescontinuation, university re-entry

Studies continuation, type ofstudies, university

Re-entry in the university studies,university

The survey

To be able to analyze the drop out student’s profile in an exhaustive and real way of the, we havedesigned an exclusively adapted instrument to the mentioned objective; therefore, a primarysource information. Precisely, for the quantitative part we have used a model of survey structuredin six sections or well differentiated blocks.

The first of them, «Information on basic personal aspects», focuses on the personal situationof the ex-student and tries to identify the specific personal features of each polled. There is asecond block, «Information on academic aspects», which tries to go deep into the academiclife that the student took when he was studying, in how he got to university and in what his degreechoice was based on. A third block, «Information on satisfaction aspects», encompassesinformation related to the appraisal that the student makes of several aspects related with theinstitution and the degree program in general. The fourth block of questions, «Information oneconomic aspects», makes reference to the economic and work situation in which the studentwas when he was at university. A fifth section, «Information on personal aspects», also dealswith the polled personal features, but it goes much further than the first block, of more generalcharacter. In this case, after having maintained a conversation for some time with the ex-studentand having established rapport, he/she is asked for his/her marital status, his/her parent’s studylevel, and his/her personal appraisal of the degree. Finally, a sixth section, «Information on socialaspects», attempts to throw light on the student’s relationships in his social environment and hisappraisal on his academic life and the university in general.

To finish up, on a more personal and qualitative note, in the last section of the survey we havegiven the student the possibility to be able to give his/her opinion on any subject that he/she findsconvenient or on which he/she expressly wanted to express through comments, suggestions orobservations.


> 87

The survey consists of sixty-five questions. Except for the personal and academic data, in themajority of questions, the student has to express an opinion on an appraisal scale that rangesfrom 1 to 10. This way we can collect homogeneous and extrapolative results that allow us todetermine the profile of people that drop out of their studies.

Before carrying out the pilot test of the survey, we asked experts on the academic performance inhigher studies to validate the content. Their contributions made us correct some punctualquestions, without creating repercussions in the global design of the data collection instrument.

Interview in depth

In order to go deeper into the drop out reasons and complement the information obtained in thesurvey, we have designed a personalized interview model. The interview has been considered asan instrument that helps us to delve in the drop out student’s profile as well as in the causes,situation and circumstances that motivated him to take the decision..

The interview script is divided into three big sections: a first descriptive section where we collectthe identification data that have already been an object of analysis in the survey but that provideindispensable data to place the interviewer and to be able to characterize the results later; thedevelopment which constitutes the corpus will allow us to make an exhaustive research, and alast open section that collects information that can be important for the student.

The interview contains eleven sections, that they reply to the identification of an explanatorymodel of the type of drop out that takes place in the Catalan university system and that allows tocorroborate the correspondence with a integrating model of economic, academic and personalaccomplishment factors.

We consider the following sections:

1. Information and activities that the student received when ho choose the degree and theuniversity: the different academic and personal aspects that were present at that time (non-university studies, university, family, employment, colleagues, friends, etc).

2. Appraisal on the orientation and tutorship that have been more effective in the decisionto go to university (visiting day, university visits to the high school, family day, campus visits,Education fair, web page, individualized sessions, tutorships with the family, informativebrochures, talks and informative sessions, reception day, welcoming reception, orientationconferences, student advisors, individual tutorships, propedeutical subjects, etc).

3. Degree and university choice motives (geographical proximity, good reputation, friendsand relatives references, for its services, job opportunities, education area, academic degrees,vocation, etc).


88 <

4. Confrontation between the expectations and the university reality: causes and level ofdifference, if it is established, between both (yes, no, better than what I thought, why?, etc.).

5. Appraisal on the aids provided by the university: talks at the beginning of the course,knowledge of the subjects, student advisors, student’s guide, web page, reception day,orientation conferences, faculty assemblies, tutorships, attention to the students, degreescoordination, reception plan, etc.

6. Main difficulties that motivated the university studies drop out (the teacher’s role, the workand study demand, the role as a student, the control, the evaluations importance, themethodological diversity, the autonomous work, the time distribution and the schedules, etc).

7. Degree difficulties when facing the work that the chosen degree implies (program quality,lack of time to study, evaluation ignorance, material excess, lack of study techniques, lack ofconcentration and motivation, combination of studies and work, transport, etc).

8. University external reasons that contributed to the studies drop out (personal, economic,social, etc).

9. Support and institutional resourceswhich the student would have liked to have to continuehis studies (conference day and reception plans, propedeutic subjects, computer servicesand libraries, tutorships, scholarships, etc).

10. Suggestions in order to improve the education and learning process at university andpropitiate the continuity of the studies (time organization schedules, more aids and resources,other evaluation opportunities, study techniques, tutorships and personalized attention, ratereduction, etc).

11. In which conditions the student would re-entry the university studies (time flexibility,methodology and suitable evaluations, personalized attention, etc).

The questions have an open character and have been personally carried out. An average of anhour was established to carry out the interviews and we highlighted the importance to collect asmuch detailed and individualized information as possible.

The study sample

To carry out the field study it has been necessary to make a series of analyses to decide thesampling criteria. In first place, from the database facilitated by AQU Catalunya, we did a drop outanalysis by degrees and areas, and, therefore, the sample has been selected through aproportional stratified sampling that takes into account the student’s drop outs at the Catalanpublic universities and the data on new entry students in order to calculate the drop out rates(course 2000-2001) by degrees.


> 89

Five degrees (one for each knowledge area) have been selected to guarantee a balancedrepresentation balanced among all the sampling variables (degrees, number of students,universities, etc). The five most representative degrees from the five areas are: BusinessAdministration and Management, Biology, Computer Engineering, History and Medicine (in table11 we can observe the drop out rate related to each degree).

After choosing the degrees, we have proceeded to the localitzation and selection of the pilotsample. The applied process has been the following one:

1. Identification and selection of the universities that are going to participate in the pilot study:Autonomous University of Barcelona (UAB), University of Barcelona (UB), University of Girona(UdG), Polytechnical University of Catalonia (UPC), Pompeu Fabra University (UPF) andUniversity of Lleida (UdL).

2. Institutional request at the participant universities in the pilot test of the lists of students whodropped-out of their studies in the selected degrees.18

3. Once we received the lists, we selected a sample from a random sampling, taking into accounta proportionate distribution by students and degrees of each selected.

Before carrying out the telephonic surveys, we gathered a group of pollsters who received atraining session on the research aim and its presentation to the ex-students, the importantquestions of the survey and the possible questions. This guaranteed one only message. Internetwas also used as an instrument of data collection because of the impossibility of carrying out sometelephone surveys.

18 We want to thank the help and the collaboration of the different vice deans of the Catalan public universities forfacilitating the data on the students who have dropped-out of their studies, which has allowed us to carry out thefield study.


90 <

To summarize which data have been taken into account and how we have carried out the fieldstudy, we present the technical fieldwork’s card:

Temporary field: the survey is related to students that entered their university studies in 2000-2001.

Geographic field: we focus on the public Catalan universities.

Population: all the students that entered to their university studies that year.

Size of the theoretical sample: 801 students.

Type of sampling: in multiple stages, random and stratified.

Information collection method: telephone.

Sampling period: September-December of 2008.

Effective sample: 275 students.

Response rate: 35.625%.

Global margin of error: +/- 5.3%.

Confidence level: 95.5%.

Regarding the interviews in depth, it is necessary to say that a subsample was taken that followedthe same criteria employed in the case of the telephonic surveys. All the interviewed students werepreviously polled and showed their predisposition to collaborate in this study. size of the theoreticalsample was of thirty students, but the effective sample has seventeen students, who wereinterviewed during November and December 2008.

The temporary limitations have not allowed us to reach all of the planned interviews. Although weconsider that the perceptions of these students can not be representative, they do offer us a moredetailed information on their personal and academic situation and of the drop out determiningfactors. In table 38 we show the distribution of the students who were interviewed by degrees anduniversities.


> 91

TABLE 38 SAMPLE’S DISTRIBUTION BY UNIVERSITIES AND DEGREES

FIELD STUDY RESULTS

Next we present the field study results obtained from the survey proposed to the students whohave dropped-out of their studies in the Catalan public and the student’s contributions in the indepth interviews.

At first, the proposed theoretical sample consisted of 801 surveys, but the effective and finalsample has ended up with 275 students. We can explain this contrast between the number ofsurveys carried out and the foreseen ones, on the one hand, because of the period of time thatwe have had to contact the ex-students and, on the other one, due to having the incorrecttelephone numbers for an effective telephone interview, the fact of not finding the ex-student’s inthe addresses and, in minor proportion, the fact some of them refused to take part in the study.

Even so, although the collected data are not enough representative to be able to take measuresin the whole of the universities, they are sufficient to be able to attain the foreseen objective in afirst approach to the non-persistence reality. At the same time, we manage to experience animprovement of the knowledge on the personal and academic profile of the students who give uptheir studies, as well as the causes of this phenomenon with an instrument that makes it possible.Tables 39 and 40 inform of the sample’s distribution.

Business Admin. Biology Computer History Medicineand Management Engineering

UB 2UdG 1 1UPF 2UAB 2 1 1 1 2UdL 2UPC 2


92 <

TABLE 39 SAMPLE’S DISTRIBUTION BY DEGREES

TABLE 40 SAMPLE’S DISTRIBUTION BY UNIVERSITIES

From the survey, the profile of the students who dropped-out of university according to theiracademic aspects is the following: we focus on the students who entered the university system incourse 2000-2001 (76.1% in course 2001-2002, 4.8% in course 2002-2003, 0.4% in course 2003-2004 and 18.7% in posterior promotions); the average age is of 22.2 years in the drop out moment,with a standard deviation of 5.075 years, and the number of courses carried out before leavingthe studies is 2.14 (with a standard deviation of 1.380).

In 91.9% of the cases we are treating a the voluntary drop out a typology, that is, that he/she wasnot forced by the permanence regulations of the university. There is, however, 6% that does notgive an answer. In regard to the moment in which they decided to abandon their studies, 69.8%dropped-out when the course finished, with independence of the drop out typology.

Of the polled people, 50.7% are women and 49.3% are men, percentages that are close to thestudent reality. 88% of the students who gave up their studies were single, 70% lived with theirparents, 12% lived with other colleagues in a rental flat and 90% did not have children. Studentscovered from their residence to the university an average of 16.72 kilometers and it took them anaverage time of 25 minutes to get there. Related to the studies that they did, 34.5% took the

Degree Theoretical sample Effective sample

Num. %

Business Admin. and Management 292 133 45.5History 138 53 38.4Biology 140 43 30.7Computer Engineering 138 34 24.7Medicine 93 12 12.9

University Taxa d’abandonament

University of Barcelona (UB) 44.4%Autonomous University of Barcelona (UAB) 32.2%University of Girona (UdG) 8.5%University Pompeu Fabra (UPF) 6.3%Universitat of Lleida (UdL) 5.2%Poly technical University of Catalunya (UPC) 3.3%


> 93

afternoon shift and 3.9% took both morning and afternoon shifts (full-time), and 61.6% took themorning shift.

Regarding their work life, 60% manifested that they worked while they were studying. Out of these,49.6% worked fifteen or more hours per week and 13.2% less than fifteen hours per week. It isinteresting to highlight that of this 60% of students that worked, 67.5% worked in jobs that werenot related to their studies.

In the literature about university drop outs, the parent’s employment is also reflected as a relevantvariable regarding their sons academic life. In particular, regarding the father’s employment, it isnecessary to highlight that 38% were qualified workers and 19.2% were business or publicinstitutions directors or managers. On the other hand, regarding the mother’s employment, themajor percentage ― of 32.2%― coincides with the father’s employment in the sense of exercisingtasks as a qualified worker. However, 19.3% did not have a remunerated work.

With regard to the type of funding that the students counted on while they were studying, it isnecessary to highlight that 55.8% of the polled ones says that their parents funded their studies,while 29.7% worked to be able to pay them and 9.4% had scholarships, fundamentally as anenrolment aid.

Following the dimensions shown in picture 2, the different student profile who has given upuniversity education according to a longitudinal study in time are shown in the following section:pre-drop out, during the studies, in the drop out moment and post-drop out.

Student profile previous to the university studies: pre-drop out aspects

Academic aspects

75% of the interviewed students came from high school (24.9% from the Social Sciences branch,17% from the Scientific-technological branch and 16.3% from Health Sciences), while only 4.9%came from the 25 or older access test or from VET’s. It is necessary to remember these resultsare conditioned by the sample’s composition, where the student’s answer rate in the SocialSciences branch is much higher than in the rest of branches. In 15.78% of the cases, the universitystudents entry was by transfer or from previous degrees. Regarding to the high school typologywhere they studied, almost 50% coursed their last year of secondary school in public high schools,while 20.2% coursed it in private centers and 25.6% in state subsidized centers.

The measured academic capacities from the access grade reflected the following data: the polledstudents said to have an university access grade of 6.74, with a 0.88 of dispersion, and a previousto the university average grade of 7.22, with a dispersion of 0.93.


94 <

Orientation and information level for the choice of a university

76.3% of the polled students accessed their first option degree, 17.1% their second one, 3.1% theirthird one, 2.3% their fourth one, 0.8% their fifth one and 0.4% accessed their eighth option.

The majority of the polled students accessed the education that they preferred from a series ofprevious orientations coming from different sources, from the high school or by personal initiative.In table 41, the ranking of the two priority orientations is shown when choosing the university career.The own initiative and the personal interest are the two reasons that had more weight in this typeof students.

TABLE 41 MOST VALUED ORIENTATIONS IN CHOOSING A DEGREE

These two options are corroborated in the interviews. The interviewed people manifest that themain information and activities linked to the choice of a university that they received before carryingout the enrolment came from relatives and from people close to their environment. Mainly, thesepeople advised them about the suitability of doing some determinate studies depending on its jobopportunities.

«My father is a doctor and my mother is a nurse, and this conditioned me to study a certain degree. When Iasked for information on other degrees they told me that as a doctor I would have more opportunities.» (UAB,Medicine)

The information acquired through the institutional web pages, open house organized by thedifferent universities, leaflets and informative brochures, and education fairs also contribute in theuniversity and degree choice. The talks by university professors, on the studies presentation andthe ones carried out in high schools by older students have also helped students to choose theirstudies and university, even though it has a minor contribution.

Generally, the received information and the activities carried out are positively valued and its utilityis highlighted. However, a third of the polled students consider that these aids did help them too

ORIENTATION Num. %

Own initiative 174 36.63Personal interest 146 30.74Family environment 40 8.42Orientation by highschool teachers 31 6.53Friends 25 5.26None of the above 22 4.63Advised from people who have studied that degree 20 4.21Visit to education fairs 8 1.68Education guide 7 1.47Visit of a university professor to the highschool 2 0.42


> 95

TABLE 42 CRITERIA BASED ON TO CHOOSE A DEGREE

much because they did not orientate them as clearly as they would have wished. In this sense,they would have preferred to have more information on the job opportunities, the degree programand on the subjects.

53.6% polled students that accessed their first option studies and later dropped-out of them affirmthat their degree choice was based on a personal initiative in contrast with the 44% that accessedto their second and third option.

Regarding the criteria that they based themselves on to choose a degree that they later droppedout of (table 42), we find that, in first place, the professional expectations and opportunities (bothof them add up more than 50% of the whole of chosen criteria).

The percentages show differential tendencies if we consider the degree’s choice order. In thiscase, 34.6% of the polled students that affirm to have accessed their degrees in second and thirdoption coincide with the access grade, making this one the main criteria.

Eleven of the sixteen students that were interviewed in person also add that the geographicalproximity of the universities to their homes is a strong reason when they choose the university. Formany students it is important to study near their home, especially if they also work, because if theyhad to go to study outside they could not be able to keep up with all activities that they carry outin that moment. On the other hand, one third of the polled students also choose a university for itsprestige, that is, for its commitment with the environment, its educational policies and itsinternational prestige.

«Studying in this university went well for me because of its proximity to my home.» (UB, Biology)

DEGREE CHOICE CRITERIA Num. %

Professional expectations 129 27.98Job opportunities 110 23.86None of the above 85 18.44Access grade 41 8.89Degree’s prestige 25 5.42Near family household 20 4.34Family environment 18 3.90Degree’s eassiness or hardness 14 3.04University’s prestige 13 2.82Degree’s duration 6 1.30


96 <

So, the reasons that justify the degree choice are linked to the vocation, to the job opportunitiesand to a continuation of second cycle degrees and VET’s. However, there are people that chosetheir studies without being very convinced, because they were guided by high schoolrecommendations, by family influence or by its job opportunities after the degree.

«I really liked computers and I had worked a lot with these machines. Because of that I thought that I wouldlike to study this degree.» (UPC, Computer Engineering)

Profile during the university studies

Orientation and tutorships at the incorporation period

Students interviewed in person consider the talks and the informative meetings useful since theyprovide orientation at the moment of university incorporation. The conferences that presented thedegrees, the open house days, the faculty reception days, the welcoming day and/or the subjectsinitial sessions appraised positively, since they allow to clarify doubts and offer a first contact withthe university area and knowledge on the degree functioning.

«The open house day that I attended was a key factor to decide I wanted to study this degree at thisuniversity.» (UB, Biology)

Regarding the tutorships, even though they can adopt several modalities (academic, personal,etc), students don’t really use them, excluding when they become compulsory (for example in themoment of formalizing the registration), fact that converts them into a mere formality that thestudents have to follow. It has also been manifested that the necessary information on how towork at the university was received by other colleagues, and not from institutional supports.

The number of people that does not remember and/or considers that there were not any usefulorientation and tutorship actions at university is certainly considerable. In this group, there arepeople who express that they did not received any action of these types, or who did not attend it,or they ignore them or they affirm that when they started to study there was not any.

«Basically, I do not remember any type of guiding action in particular. The information that I needed tofunction properly I received from other colleagues and from the web page. It would have been interesting toundertake some activity of this type because at first you are a little bit lost.» (UdL, Economics)

Dedication to the studies and academic integration

A direct factor of the academic performance is the effort and the time that the student dedicatesto his studies. According to the opinion of the polled students, their assistance to class had adeclining tendency in 58.1% of the cases, constant in 38.9% of the cases and increasing in 3% ofthe cases. The three main motives that they have manifested as reasons for not attending toclasses are because they had access to notes from previous years (16%), because they preferred


> 97

to invest that time in other more interesting activities (10.9%) and because the professors did notexplain themselves well enough and they got bored (8.6%). These three motives where the onesthat were mentioned with more frequency among the polled students, but there are also othersmotives. Of these motives a lack of motivation is deduced from the students. In this sense, thestudents who have given up their studies affirm that they dedicated an average of 6.4 hours to itweekly. Curiously, the students who have not overcome the permanence regulations manifest thatthey dedicated up to 7.83 hours (deviation of 5.98).

In the whole of the sample, the indicators of academic integration (motivation for the studies, utility,implication in the studies and level of satisfaction with the degree and professors) show loweraverages than the social integration factors. Likewise, the opinions are homogeneous andcoincident given the punctuations of the standard deviations. In table 43 the degree is shown inaccordance with certain aspects related with the academic integration, all of them are evaluatedin a scale from 1 to 10.

TABLE 43 LEVEL OF AGREEMENT WITH THE ACADEMIC INTEGRATION INDICATORS

As the literature on university education says, the social aspect of the university is very importantand is one of the fundamental parts that make the student experience the university life one wayor another. To check out what the students think about social aspects, the survey also proposessome questions regarding this area. In table 44 the results of the average appraisal that is madein a scale from 1 to 10. As we can observe, the punctuations are not very high. In particular, theassistance to social activities has obtained an average grade of 3.37.

ACADEMIC INTEGRATION Average Standard deviation

I was motivated to finish my studies 4.65 2.89

I got deceived while I was studying and on seeing the suject content (false expectations) 5.75 3.03

I thought/felt that I had to finish my studies 5.30 3.00

I felt responsible and implicated in my studies 5.78 2.65

I found the studies useful to find a later on job 5.37 2.85

I felt integrated in the academic university life 5.06 2.85


98 <

TABLE 44 AGREEMENT LEVEL WITH SOCIAL INTEGRATION ASPECTS

Regarding the student’s satisfaction aspects with the studies and the university in general, theresults are shown in table 45. In an analogous way to the rest of the field study, we have used ascale from 1 to 10 for student’s appraisal. As we observe, the satisfaction that the polled studentshave shown regarding the academic aspects (professors, degree programs, tutorship) is inferiorto the one related to other institution services. In particular, the best appraised services are thelaboratories, with an average of 7.22, and the service of professional practices, with a punctuationof 6.98. The sport activities service and the library have also been appraised very positively, with6.94 and 6.90 respectively.

TABLE 45 AGREEMENT LEVEL WITH SATISFACTION ASPECTS

In relation to the interviews, the main changes and difficulties that students found at university andthat meant the studies drop out are linked to the inefficiency of the personal and professionalorientation and the motivation. The lack of orientation refers to the advice in the choice of universityand of degrees, while the discourage obeys to the lack of conviction in the studies carried out andnot enjoying of the academic and university life.

SOCIAL INTEGRATION Average Standard deviation

I made new friends at university and I felt integrated in a group 6.36 2.93

My attendance to social activities that were carried out at university 3.37 2.55

SATISFACTION Average Standard deviation

Satisfaction with Coursed subjects 5.81 2.22the academic aspects Professor’s tasks 5.60 2.16

Quality of the classes 5.60 2.24The subjects syllabus 5.73 2.19The degree program 5.61 2.30The academic tutorship service 5.36 3.37

Satisfaction with the other The library service 6.90 2.47institution services The cafeteria service 5.97 2.71

The transportation service 6.20 2.75The reprography service 5.83 2.52The class materials and settings 5.10 2.29The laboratories 7.22 3.51The professional practices service 6.98 3.65The study rooms services 6.23 2.89The sport activities services 6.94 3.42


> 99

«The university environment seemed gray and hardly motivating to me. It seemed like everybody took care oftheir own business and this did not encourage me to keep studying.» (UPC, Computer Engineering)

On the other hand, the degree demands, sometimes, is also a change that the polled studentshighlight from the university. As a matter of fact, some of them highlight that in highschool they «almost did everything for you but at university you have to do everything on your behalf». Otherdifficulties correlate, for example, with the exhaustion of official examination announcements of asubject.

The development of a work activity means a second important difficulty in the realization of thestudies. The impossibility of reconciling the studies with the work because of the schedules ofthese two areas is a motive to drop out the university studies. These situations do not facilitate theclass attendance, the realization of group assignments, etc., which makes the students end uptaking the decision to stop studying.

«It was impossible for me to make studies compatible with work. The work schedules that I had did not allowme to be able to attend the classes.» (UdG, History)

There are also more particular difficulties, such as health problems, individualism, lack ofconnection with certain professors, transportation, etc, that are drop out motives in somestudents. Just in two cases we did not find any change or difficulty at the university that wasdetermining in dropping out of university studies.

On the other hand, the polled students also consider the accessibility and the professionalism ofthe professors like a help during the studies. However, sometimes there are criticisms on a lackof coordination between the professors of the same subject as for the education and learningsyllabus, and that it is necessary to develop attitudes that improve the motivation towards thestudy. In the same way, in some case the help provided by the same colleagues is considered veryimportant. In return, the lack of scholarships and financial aids is pointed out as a negative aspectin order to be able to continue the studies.

One of the aids that offer the universities and that the polled students consider most useful duringthe studies are the tutorships, since they provide a suitable and appropriate orientation for thedevelopment of the respective studies. Despite this, we recognize in some cases the poor use ofthis service.

«I keep very good memories of the individual tutorships that I carried out with the professors of my degree.They were useful to me because they provided some good orientations.» (UAB, History)

More than a third of the interviewed people highlighted the fact of not remembering any type ofinstitutional help while they were studying. Of these, some recognize the existence of help servicesoffered by the university, but, in any case, any of them resorted to any aid while they studied.


100 <

Situation at the drop out moment

We can affirm that in the moment of dropping out of the university studies, the polled students hadan average of 63.97 credits passed, that is, as an average, they had completed the first academicyear; but this is not global, since the standard deviation is very high, of 68.12 credits. This resultfully coincides with what the literature on university drop out says. In 91.9% of the cases there hasbeen a typology of voluntary drop out typology of abandonment voluntary, that is, that it was notforced by the university’s permanence regulations. There is, however, 6% that does not answer.Regarding to the moment in which they decided to give up their studies, 69.8% dropped-out afterfinishing the course, with independence of the drop out typology.

Reasons for drop out

In answer to the key question of the survey about which was the main reason that made thestudent decide to give up the university studies, 28.8% affirmed that it was the lack of motivationthat made them drop out (table 46).

TABLE 46 MAIN REASON TO DROP OUT OF STUDIES

The whole of drop out reasons have been classified, in accordance with the type of attributionsthat the polled students have stated, in internal causes (lack of motivation and non-fulfilledexpectations) and external causes (the rest of categories), in which the given explanation is relatedwith factors that are out of reach to the student. 44.8% of the sample attributes the drop outdecision to internal causes.

The analysis of the student’s profile according to the attribution of the drop out causes showsimportant differences:

n 100% of the expelled students referred to external causes.

DROP-OUT REASONS %

Lack of motivation 28.8Work reasons 18Non-fulfilled expectations 16Others 14Schedule incompatibility 8.4Family reasons 5.6Economic needs 4Opportunities that are offered 3.6Family pressure 1.6


> 101

n 60% of the students who accessed their first option degree and 75% of those that accessedto their second and third option claim their drop out decision to external causes, comparedto 89% of the students who accessed their degrees in «other options», that claim this decisionto internal causes like their lack of motivation for the studies.

n 20% of the students who attribute the drop out decision to internal causes affirm that the mainreason of their studies choice is the access grade, in front of 9% of the students who attributethe decision to external causes.

n The family influences and the academic environment in the choice of the studies are moreimportant in students that indicate as a drop out reason the lack of motivation or the non-fulfilled expectations.

n The analysis by degrees shows different results. The Biology (59%) and Computer Engineering(75%) students attribute the drop out decision to internal causes. At the other extreme, wefind that Business Management and Administration students (60%), attribute the drop out toexternal causes.

n Men and women make similar attributions; however, the analysis by ages does showdifferences. Thus, the average student’s ages who affirm to have given up the studies forexternal causes is higher (average of 29.2).

n The attendance rate and the dedication to the studies are factors that differentiate two groupsof students according to their attribution.

- 63% of the students who attribute the drop out decision to internal causes studied at full-time and their attendance average stood between 50% and 70%, with a strong decliningattendance tendency (63%).

- 58% of the students who attribute the drop out decision to external causes studied had apart-time dedication and 55% worked fifteen or more hours weekly. Their attendanceaverage was inferior.

Regarding the academic and social integration at university, the statistical analysis brings to lightsignificant differences in five of the eight indicators. The most significant difference is related withthe item «I got deceived while I was studying and on seeing the subject’s content», with an averageof 7.28 for the group that claims the drop out decision to internal causes in front of an average ofthe 4.66 for the group who claims it to external causes (table 47).


102 <

TABLE 47 COMPARISON BETWEEN INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL DROP OUT REASONS

For more than one third of the interviewed students in person, the expectations regarding to theuniversity studies worsened. The main reasons of this situation were due to the fact of it not beingclearly convinced that theyreally liked the chosen studies, to a lack of interest and to theimpossibility of reconciling the academic with the work life. In some cases they manifested thatthe educational methodology was not suitable, that the studies were similar to the ones in highschool, that the schedules were unsuitable or that it was impossible to access other studies ofsecond cycle.

«My expectations worsened because on the first period of four months I had to do five subjects and I onlyliked the professors of two of the subjects. I stopped attending Physics, for example: we did not studyanything new, all we did was already done in high school.» (UAB, Biology)

Other people consider that their expectations improved and were positive. In this sense, they affirmto have enjoyed the studies acquiring knowledge, especially during the last years of the degreedue to seeing a major linking of the studies with the professional practice. Likewise, the fact thatthe students perceive that the studies can provide them a good professional future contributes tothe improvement of the expectations.

«From all of us that started the degree, very few finished. The two last years are the best because you seehow everything can be applied in practice.» (UAB, Computer Engineering)

On the other hand, there are also people who did not see how their expectations modified.Regarding this, they express that they already had created their expectations before entering intothe university and that there were some subjects that they liked more than others.

The main difficulties that the polled students found in their degree were the lack of time and theimpossibility of reconciling the academic life with the work life. According to the students whoworked, they did not have enough time to do it, some timetables coincided with their work hours,they could not attend certain classes, the attendance was important in some subjects, they couldnot carry out group works or they did not have class notes.

REASONS Internal cause External cause

I was motivated to finish my studies (*) 4.03 5.10

I got deceived while I was studying and on seeing the subject’s content (false expectations) (*) 7.28 4.66

I thought/felt that I had to finish my studies (*) 4.82 5.63

I felt integrated in the university academic life (*) 5.88 4.62

I made new friends at university and I felt integrated in a group (*) 6.86 6.00


> 103

«For me it was not easy at all to meet up with colleagues in order to do group assignments, because I alsohad to work at the same time.» (UPF, Economics)

The evaluation systems also mean a difficulty in the study for some students. Thus, theconcentration of the evaluation responsibility in one only examination is criticized and a majorflexibility of the evaluation is required, especially in the case of those people who study and workat the same time.

Other more concrete and particular difficulties have to do with the personal discourage, the lackof economic resources and of scholarships to face the studies, the death of a close relative, thedispersion of the equipments throughout the campus (classrooms, offices, etc) and theovercrowding of some classrooms. Only two of the interviewed students did not find any problemwhen they wanted to study.

«I dropped-out because of a personal issue on motivation. I was not clearly convinces on the degree aims.»(UdL, Economics)

The external causes at university that lead to the studies drop out are concentrated in the difficultiesin reconciling studies and work, with the consequent lack of time. Afterwards, there are a seriesof personal reasons, like the discourage or the wanting to do other studies, which also explain thedrop out.

«The timetables that the university offered were not compatible in order to study and work at the same time.»(UAB, Economics)

Other external causes and of a more concrete character that justify the studies drop out are thelack of external motivation, the willingness to sit public examination contests, the lack of economicresources, the geographical distance between the home and the center of studies, thetransportation problems in private transport, the fact of having suffered an accident or the familyadvice and orientations to change studies.

Post-drop out situation

Academic and work situation

At the moment that the survey is made 83.4% of the polled students work. This is a highpercentage, but it has to be taken into account that the sample is formed, mostly, by people whostarted to study in course 2000-2001 and, therefore, eight years have passed since they took thedecision to give up their studies. 37.7% of these people combine work with their studies.

39.1% of the sampled people has continued studying after giving up a degree. In this case, almostthree quarters go back to university. Another outstanding aspect is that often there has been a re-entry at the same university. Table 46 illustrates the situation of this sample.


104 <

Re-entry intention

Once the polled student has been asked about all the formerly mentioned areas and has pickedup the information referring to academic, satisfaction, economic, personal and social aspects arecollected, the final part of the survey includes two questions that make reference to a possible re-entry to the university system. They are two questions to know if, after a previous drop outexperience, the student would be willing to go back and to continue studying at university. Withthese answers, we can find out if the polled people had such a bad experience that he/she doesnot want nor can attempt to go back to studying again or if he/she would be willing to try it again.

Next we attach two graphs that show the answers to these questions. As we can see, 39.1% ofthe people who gave up their studies would be willing to go back to university and continue thesame studies (graph 4),. On the other hand, 71% of the polled people would also be willing to goback to studying, but it would have to be in other degrees in order to continue studying (graph 5).

(52%)

(9%)

(39%)

GRAPH 4 WOULD YOU RE-ENTER

UNIVERSITY TO CONTINUE

THE DEGREE

YOU DROPPED-OUT OF?

Yes No N/C

(52%)

(9%)

(39%)

GRAPH 5 WOULD YOU RE-ENTRY

UNIVERSITY TO DO OTHER

DEGREES?

Yes No N/C


> 105

Table 48 collects the relationship between the university where they currently study and the onethat they left. As we can see, the highest percentages show that normally the re-entry takes placein the university where they already studied. We can explain this fact because the students saythat they appraise the proximity between their residence place and the university.

TABLE 48 RELATION BETWEEN THE DROPPED-OUT AND THE CURRENT UNIVERSITY

However, the supports and institutional resources that the interviewed students would wish inorder to be able to continue their studies belong to the orientation area. In this sense, moreinformative talks on the university functioning and the future job opportunities, tutorships (in itsseveral modalities) and the advice of other students in their last courses are claimed.

«Maybe in that moment it would have been worthy to receive more support with tutorships and orientations,more support to reorient the personal situation in the university and not only in the started studies.» (UAB, Medicine)

In order to be able to reconcile studies and work, more opportunities are claimed in this line.As faras the combination of studies and work was possible, the studies could be continued. Therefore,it would be convenient to offer alternatives to the attendance classes or to enjoy reductions in theworking days, for example. Other supports that are claimed are linked to a reduction in the degreetasks, to help in the transportation or to a major flexibility in general.

«Maybe a degree program with less work, or simply distributed in more time, for the ones who work wouldbe a good alternative.» (UAB, Computer Engineering)

The polled students bring ideas to improve the processes on education and learning that go fromdifferent evaluation opportunities to offer a greater diversity, a major follow-up of the students atthe beginning of their studies, a reduction in the number of students for class group, an

Current university University that they dropped-out of

UAB UB UdG UPF UdLl UPC Total

UAB 48.3% 8.7% 0.0% 20.0% 100.0% 0.0% 29.9%UB 34.5% 47.8% 33.3% 20.0% 0.0% 25.0% 35.8%UdG 0.0% 26.1% 66.7% 40.0% 0.0% 0.0% 14.9%UPF 6.9% 4.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.5%UdL 3.4% 8.7% 0.0% 20.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6.0%UPC 3.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 75.0% 6.0%URV 3.4% 4.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.0%

Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%


106 <

improvement of the computer materials of the classrooms, the incorporation of activities linked tothe professional practice and a major accessibility of the professors.

«There should be more implication in order to provide major orientation in the first years and not only in thelast ones and orientation on the labor market.» (UB, Economics)

Ideas to improve the university are also proposed, like the improvements in the motivation of thestudents towards the study, the specialization of the studies, activating work orientation strategiesin the first courses, a professor increase to reduce large class groups, the existence of alternativedegree programs for the students who work, the re-ordering of the timetables and the introductionof propedeutical subjects and reinforcement classes.

Near half of the interviewed people re-started their studies in other degrees, but the main conditionthat those who would want to reenter has to do with the existence of programs that allow theconciliation of the academic and work activities. Others claim an increase of the financial aids tobe able to study, a major linking of the university with the businesses, the incorporation ofmethodologies that don’t imply a full attendance, a more personalized attention, the promotion ofaids to study abroad or the promotion of a more autonomous work on the part of the student.Finally, four people of the sample that for the time being they would not go back to university, eventhough they never closed the door to this possibility.

«If I had a major flexibility in my work schedules, I believe that I would be capable of going back to the degreethat I left and finish it, but this is unfortunately not possible for the time being.» (UB, Biology)

RESEARCH CONCLUSIONS AND METHODOLOGICALLIMITATIONSThe university studies drop out research has as a final aim to be able to offer corrective measuresthat allow to propitiate a knowledge about which actions, the same university institution, shouldundertake to improve student’s retention in the university educations, so that it is possible to attaina higher level of success than the current one regarding this aspect and to carry out posterioractions to the university entry that help students to continue and to finish their studies.

In the concretion of this chapter, the main contribution is the elaboration of two researchinstruments that did not exist before: the survey and the interview (see annex), and that they allowus to undertake new posterior researches.

The realization of the surveys has allowed us to approach the profile of the people who gave uptheir university studies, which has been extendedly described in this chapter. On the other hand,the interviews help us to broaden the knowledge of the circumstances in which the drop out andits causes were produced.


> 107

The data obtained, in spite of its quantity limitations by the reduction of the surveys and theforeseen interviews in the initial sample, allow us to make a first focus and location of the problemthat is object of study, and provide appropriate and effective measures that help to reduce thedrop out rates of the university studies.

The main difficulties in being able to obtain a major number of data have been linked to the needto have a more extense time to make the research. Likewise, it has been difficult to have thecollaboration of the people who gave up their studies, probably for emotional reasons, of distanceor, simply, of lack of culture to facilitate information.

AS A SYNTHESISFinally, we finish this chapter aiming briefly some of the significant questions which the resultsobtained from the field study allow us to advance.

About the realization of the research

The instruments used (survey and interview) have helped to complement the conclusions extractedfrom the analysis of students database who have given up the university education. The possibilityto collect different type of information, that is beyond the institutional one, from the same studentallows us to understand the complexity of the drop out phenomenon and, at the same time, toascertain the different theoretical models and the explanatory factors. This first pilot test hasdemonstrated the importance of this type of study to understand why determinate students decidein a determinate moment to give up the started university studies and, also, to detectmethodological limitations in which it would be necessary to solve in further applications. Theselimitations are related, on the one hand, with the need to collect more information about whatcauses the drop out, the personal consequences that it entails, the re-entry reasons, etc, and, ofthe other one, with the sample of the study. The fact of having worked with a reduced sample hasmade it impossible to analyze and to study in depth the drop out of minority collectives, as nowthose that access university though «25 years or older», the students of second degrees orstudents with some sort of handicap, among others.

About the incorporation in the university studies

Students choose the university studies mainly for own initiative and personal interest based onthe orientations from relatives and close people to their environments. The selection of theuniversity is usually justified by geographical proximity reasons, while aspects such as the prestigeand the educational policies of each institution are relegated to a second term.


108 <

About the drop out reasons and some strategies

The obtained results, that have to be considered as a guidance given the pilot sample used relatedto the total drop outs at our universities, point out the fact that the lack of motivation for the studies,measured directly by a question and indirectly by the order of the degree choice, is the factor thatexplains better the decision to drop out of them. The lack of motivation has a direct incidence inthe academic integration, fundamentally with a decrease of the assistance to class or to socialactivities, and in the attribution of the success or the academic failure. Moreover, the fact that themoment when the decision is taken is concentrated in the majority of cases during the firstsemester reinforces the importance of the retention actions by the universities.

More than half of the people who gave up their studies had a lack of conciliation between theacademic and work activities; the rest attributes the drop out to internal causes (lack of motivationand non-fulfilled expectations). The vast majority worked in employments that were little or not atall not linked to the studies carried out. However, other reasons for which the assistance to classstarts to decrease usually has to do with the fact that other colleagues facilitate class notes, therealization of other activities of interest, the boredom or the existence of a determinate non sharededucational methodology. In any case, the great majority of the drop outs are usually of voluntary.

A strategy of education and learning that the person who gives up the studies appraises and atthe same time claims is the tutorship. It is for the type of orientation that it provides, addressed tothe improvement of the formative development. On the other hand, it also seems suitable topromote orientation strategies that facilitate the incorporation at university, like informative talks,open house, reception day, etc.

About the return to university

An important information for the universities is the possible re-entry of those people who have leftthe studies, or to re-entry the studies that they gave up or to go back to different degrees. In thissample the re-entry is not a characteristic feature: less than a quarter of the polled students havecontinued their university studies. The intention of re-entering the university again is present or, atleast, the polled people answer this way in front of the question that asked if they would be willingto re-enter the university again, but the data still demonstrates that the drop out and non-reincorporation rates are still very high.

Therefore, the fact that these ex-students have an open door to re-enter the same university orthat they have that intention to do it, is a satisfaction indicator regarding the quality of the institution.To make this possible, it would be important to start off mechanisms that allowed the conciliationbetween the work and academic lives. In this sense, they write down as possible aids developmentmeasures of non-attendance methodologies, personalized attention or a more autonomous workon the part of the student.


> 109

We must not forget students that have no intention of re-enter or to go back to study at universitybecause they represent an important percentage (61.9%). Different formative measures should betaken for this type of students.

> 111

5. RETENTION STRATEGIES*

INTRODUCTIONFacing the drop out phenomenon, many universities have been designing for some time toimplement and evaluate institutional plans and strategies to improve the retention and to increasethe persistence of the students. The retention is considered a determining factor of prestige,credibility and economic stability of the universities and, consequently, of the university system.This is like this because, on the one hand, the retention assures high benefits to the university andto the society through the stable maintenance of the student’s enrolments to guarantee theuniversity budget; and, of the other one, because the satisfaction of the students and theirimplication in the formation contributes to the fact that they carry out and finish their studies withsuccess. However, the retention is a necessary but non-sufficient condition. As Tinto (2005) states,the preventive strategies, supportive or correctives, but the reaffirmation of the important basesof the higher education are the secret of the retention.

This chapter emphasis in the need to set in a context and to diagnose the concrete needs ofimprovement for each institution, since not all the institutional retention programs and strategiesthat develop are applicable to our organizational and learning cultures. From here, we present aset of proposals or programs of prevention intervention that combine institutional catchmentpolicies, admission and accompaniment of the student with the psycho-pedagogical advice andthe student’s academic support, the redesigning of the degrees and activities of high impact, thecontinued formation of the professors and the social offer of the university.

TYPOLOGY OF RETENTION STRATEGIESFrom the undertaken actions in order to increase the retention and to improve the academicperformance in different university systems, we must say that many of them are proposals thathave to do with the improvement of the academic performance, adaptation and social integration,the orientation and the advice to the student, and that they are carried out in different moments oftheir formative process. In a synthesis exercise, Cabrera et al (2006) identify the following typologyof actions:

* The authors of of the final versionof the chapter have been: Joaquín Gairín, Mònica Feixas and David Rodríguez.


112 <

a) Actions that help the social and institutional adaptation. With this type of actions it is amatter of fostering the student’s social life, that is why the programs are directed to theorganization of entertainment and cultural events; to introduce the institutional culture; toidentify and develop the psychological processes that take place during the social andacademic integration, or to take the differential characteristics of the several cultural groupsof the students into account when designing actions.

b) Student’s adaptation actions. Here we include actions thought to recruit non traditionalstudents.

c) Tutorship university programs. They are related with modules of basic formation in skills(study habits, critical reading, social skills, research works, etc) sent to new entry students(mainly of degree, but also of postgraduate courses).

d) Information programs and pre-university orientation on the degree characteristics. Theseprograms intend to broaden the information to the future students or to the new enrolled onesabout the requirements for the degree, the competences which are necessary to develop,the profile of the graduate, the itineraries, the practices, the final projects, etc.

e) Advice and study support programs, especially training in strategies of learning and ofpsychological support. In this line, the proliferation and the enlargement of the services ofinformation and university orientation are highlighted, as well as the development of programsof «curricular infusion».

f) Institutional actions. There are numerous directed experiences to the organizationalredesign of the universities, in which they are foreseen strategic lines of performance as wellas the incorporation of the necessary resources and infrastructures for its development.Among these, the ones related with the direct training of the responsible people for theexecution of actions, as for the creation of the figure of the «leader of campus», highlight thetraining of the ones that help in the retention in the processes of help to the students, or thecreation of learning communities. In our context, the experiences of the programs of studentsadvisors can be included in this point.

g) Guides of actions centered on the improvement of the social integration of studentsthat foresees practices in eight areas: academic advice, practices and administrative policies,recruitment, development of the professors, system of reward of the professors, informationprograms and orientation to the student, residential life and programming of matters relatedwith the students.

h) Finally, actions aimed to students of non attending universities or registered in distancecourses.

RETENTION STRATEGIES

> 113

On the other hand, the National Audit Office (NAO, 2007) of the United Kingdom orders thestrategies for the retention by whether if they are addressed to improve the informationmanagement; to increase the commitment to the institution and to the students towards theimprovement of the processes of learning; to increase the support of the academic offerthroughout student’s orientation and tutorships, for the structural conditions for the learning, forthe support of specialists, etc., or to broaden the offer of learning:

1. Information Management: the majority of institutions collect and spread information on theirdrop out rates in every course or faculty. Others use the information of the students, forexample, on assistance, to identify students in risk of dropping-out of their studies. A minorityof institutions carry out regular exercises to identify in a premature way the students who cangive up the studies and to attempt to help them to establish the real reasons of their decision,especially when it is ascertained by a common motive.

2. Strategic commitment with the retention: it is important that the institutions have a clearstrategic approach and that all the staff members understand it and accept it, so that theynotice that the commitment with some major levels of retention can affect the way they work.Many institutions carry out activities to increase the retention, but a strategy is not alwaysclear to all of the institution’s staff members. Even when the strategy can seem clear therecan be parts of the organization that demonstrate a major commitment than others.

3. Student’s commitment: the students have to promise themselves to attend the classsessions and to fulfill their autonomous work. The universities can communicate this to thestudents and make a follow-up of those cases in which the commitment seems that is notensured.

4. Support to the academic offer: the duly gifted tutorship systems help the students in anindividual way to identify the extra support and the structures that they have within their scopeto improve the opportunities of success. The institutions often offer preregistration coursesand opportunities of learning support, but many find it difficult that the students use theseservices that would help them to «keep in the course» and to have a good performance. Thiscan be given because sometimes the students as well as the academic staff consider thatthese services are destined to offsetting a «deficit» in a student’s competence or skill.However, the universities can improve the promotion of these services as positive options toincrease the possibilities of a good learning.

5. Broadening the learning options: some institutions, in particular those with a highpercentage of non traditional students, are more flexible allowing that the students choosethe options of learning that fits them better with their personal circumstances, for examplethrough systems of understanding modules. There are other innovative methodologies, likethe use of visual cases, which help to motivate the student (Triadó, 2008).


114 <

6. Specialists and financial support: all institutions have special services, like health,psychological or of social welfare. On the other hand, besides the ordinary financial aids,economic support is given through special scholarships, especially for students with badeconomic situations. Some institutions are more proactive to offer financial support thanothers.

France also insists on some public devices to fight against the failure and the drop out. Thesecorrelate especially with tutorships carried out by students of second or third cycle, who are dueto several objectives: a) the «membership» in terms of Coulon (Beaupère et al, 2007); b) givingsupport along the year; c) helping to reinforce the contents of the subjects, and d) to help theorientation in the event of absenteeism or “décrochage” («fall out»). The strategies includeinformation and orientation workshops in the realization of projects, of study habits, to treat specificdifficulties, etc, or of re-orientation towards another degree.

In any case, the existing diversity in the organization of the higher education institutionsrecommends that before presenting a concrete strategy proposal, we must examine the possibletransfer from instruments and policies to the corresponding context. Stolk, Tiessen, Clift and Levitt(2007) point out this diversity in four big areas: the institutional approaches, the policy and the localgovernment organization of the university systems; the organization of the studies; the funding,and the student population:

n Regarding the territorial organization of the university systems, there are countries like theUnited States where the higher education operates like a market with a wide and mixed offerof private and public institutions, in which the length, the quality and the variety of the coursesand the price structures for each course makes it difficult to make a classification of this offer.

n As for the studies organization, it is different for countries where modular systems based oncredits (Netherlands) are offered than in countries where the universities have mostly a fixedcurriculum (Ireland). The autonomy and the own accreditation that these universities offer insome countries gives them more flexibility in the offer of different type of courses and on itsorganization. This flexibility as well as a modular system and the possibility of institutionalevaluation researches seem to have a positive impact in student’s retention.

n Financial aid varies depending on the countries. While in some countries it is necessary to paythe enrollment, in others countries like Ireland the budget to pay those costs come from thegovernment. In Netherlands, the enrollment fees are fixed in the public universities and variablein the private ones, and can change according to the course and the university. It has beenproved that some types of fees can have a negative impact on retention, especially in studentfrom minority groups.

n Finally, the student population also varies according to the countries: there is countries wherethe student collective is very homogeneous (Ireland) and other countries like the United States,Australia or the Netherlands that have groups of students of ethnic minorities. This diversitycan be considerate when comparing the percentages of retention between groups.


> 115

As we previously said, this variety directly prevents the transferring of any institutional action. Everypossible approach to the design of retention strategies has to consider, an initial diagnosis thatfacilitates a profound knowledge of the political and socioeconomic characteristics of theinstitutional context and of the specific reality to which must give an answer to, and, from this point,determine the main priorities, objectives, interventions and resources that allow the strategyimplementation.

SOME RETENTION STRATEGIES IN CONTEXTIn the Catalan university system context, we make an approach to the strategies delimitationdepending on if they are done from the university system or are promoted by the institution. A partof these strategies are from the psyco-pedagogic area, this typology allows us to put in order someof the improvement, satisfaction and retention strategies more addressed to the universitycommunity, as well as to bring up new ones that have not yet been sufficiently tested. We classifythem depending if they are generic or if they are confined to a specific time period (the pre-entry,the first year and during the university career).

In the first case, the university system’s measures to facilitate the retention have to do mainly withthe studies organization. The change of study plans that we are currently undergoing representsa good moment to reflect on the suitability of the modularity or the flexibility of the student’sitineraries, for example through a double way: slow or fast. However, this requires theestablishment of new financial aids to help the study of students with less income. The idea tocontinue promoting researches on the drop out, performance or satisfaction at university and, if itis proper, to establish a unit or observatory for the research in these subjects is highly suggested.

Also the diagnosis actions allow us to detect weaknesses in one or several aspects of theorganization and the student’s academic training. The evaluation program on the degrees directedby the Catalan University Quality Assurance Agency (AQU) has the aim, among others, to detectthe degree’s weak and strong points in order to design improvement plans that influence on theretention. These plans have to appear afterwards in the internal planning agreements. Throughthe program contract with the Catalan government, one of the financial funding ways is theextraordinary resources, which are conditioned to the achievement of some objectives. For thedegrees that have high drop out rates, these objectives are linked to the capacity to improve theretention.

On the other hand, the university system actions that are precisely addressed to the studentsaccording to the moment in which they are at university are for different purposes. There are somethat intend to promote the information systems and pre-university orientation and the joint withthe previous studies, and others that allow to diagnosing the non-satisfaction reasons and cansolve potential temporary or definitive drop out situations. These last purposes allow the


116 <

identification of students in a risk situation, especially when we are treating with a non-traditionalstudent to whom alternative systems can be provided. The satisfaction happens when we ensurea quality education with activities of high academic and social impact; the mobility among studentscan contribute in generating a major motivation towards the chosen studies.

In second place, we suggest actions that are addressed to the totality of the community of a sameuniversity. Thus, the university should strategically commit with the retention, to know how to:insuring its staff, in their professional intervention area, know the complexity of the drop outphenomenon to be able to contribute in reducing it; improving the systems of the student’sacademic record (or to ask for new data in the enrolment survey); look for and share goodpractices; watch over the quality of the academic programs and the motivation of the students,and committing themselves with the professional and pedagogic development of the professors.

More specifically, the universities organize strategies to inform, to attract and to accommodatebetter the students who are interested to carry out higher education studies (open house,preregistration actions, freshman conferences, reception day, linguistic reception for theforeigners, student advisors, orientation and psycho-pedagogical units, etc). We also find actionsto create social and academic support networks and promotion of the social life, like learningcommunities, as well as impulsating the participation and the implication of the students inuniversity tasks. It is important to assure that all the services destined to the student are accessibleand known. Finally, a study about the mobility between the university and the main urban areascan inform of the type of displacements that are carried out and of their duration.

In the line of the psyco-pedagogical type of actions, the availability of tutorship plans is positivelyappraised by degrees or faculties, plans of personal development and/or orientation services andpsycho-pedagogical services by centers. There are strategies that are carried out during the pre-entry that are related with the information and orientation contribution on the options, theitineraries, the knowledge branches, etc. The diagnosis and the own competence self-knowledgein the degree profile actions area also amplified, or of formation and tutorship referred to thelearning strategies, for example. Complementary actions can be carried out to develop certaincompetences (social, intellectual, methodological), reinforce study habits, show specifictechniques and promote cooperative work.

In an attempt to synthesize some of the main proposals, we present a classification of the actionsand strategies from two variables: time (before the arrival at university, during the first year ofuniversity and in the course of the university life) and reference area (university system andinstitutional area) (table 49).


> 117

TABLE 49 STRATEGIES TO IMPROVE STUDENT’S RETENTION AT UNIVERSITY

General

Pre-entry

UNIVERSITY SYSTEM’S ACTIONS

Establishing sustainable scholarshipprograms and loans for the students withless income.

Organizing the studies in a modular way,more enrollment flexibility (slow/fast way orpart-time full-time studies).

Promoting programs and studies on thecauses, the effects and the solutions of theuniversity drop out.

Creating an office for the the retentionresearch.

Evaluating the degrees.

Considering the part time enrolled studentsand their persistence in the forecasts ofregistrations.

Providing alternative systems for the non-traditional students.

Promoting the systems and programs ofinformation and pre-university orientation.

Improving the joint and the connection withthe levels of previous studies (basically highschool, A levels and VET).

Improving the systems of transportationbetween the institutions and the main urbanareas.

INSTITUCIONAL ACTIONS

Improving the record systems of theacademic record of the students.

Committing in strategies for the retention.

Insuring the university staff and making surethey know the drop out causes and factorsand can develop strategies to reduce it.

Developing programs that encourage andshare good practices and reinforce aculture of learning (prizes, ceremonies).

Committing with the professionaldevelopment of the professors andencouraging their pedagogic perfection ofthe professors.

Creating information and universityorientation services, also for centers.

Elaborating plans of university tutorships.

Incorporating plans of personaldevelopment (PDP).

Designing activities of high academicimpact.

Promoting strategies for student catchment(open house, fairs, web of future students,visits...).

Stimulating the reception of the students(linguistic reception for foreign students,psycho-pedagogic advice unit, conferenceday, reception and welcoming,preregistration actions).

Inform and orientate on the degrees andthe knowledge branches, and about theseveral options.

Improving the self-knowledge of the profileof the students.

Adapting the formative levels (introductoryand propedeutical subjects, competenceworkshops).


118 <

TABLE 49 STRATEGIES TO IMPROVE STUDENT’S RETENTION AT UNIVERSITY

(CONTINUATION FROM PREVIOUS PAGE)

First year

During theuniversitydegree

UNIVERSITY SYSTEM’S ACTIONS INSTITUCIONAL ACTIONS

Go deep into the drop out diagnosiselaborating suitable measurement systems.

Encouraging the mobility betweeninstitutions.

Providing/facilitating intermediate exits withcertification.

Improving the mechanisms of detection ofpossible students in risk to give up theirstudies.

Generating academic and social supportnetworks and learning communities.

Fostering the social life of the universitystudents, favoring the integration in thesocial and academic aspects.

Implicating all the staff in the student’sretention.

Implicating the students in groups anduniversity tasks.

Assuring that all the services destined tothe students (academic, economic,personal and social) are accessible andknown by all students.

Promoting the work in small groups topromote the sense of belonging andidentity.

Intensifying the programs of advice andsupport to the study during the first year, andcomplementary actions for the developmentof competences and study habits.

Establishing student’s follow-up systems.

Perfecting the cognitive and meta-cognitiveprocesses.

Considering the different rhythms andstyles of learning.

Watching over the use of participative andcollaborative methodologies, promotedwith the TIC, and using them for monitoringthe progress and performance of thestudent closely, and making a continuedevaluation.


> 119

Next we make emphasis in some concrete strategies that can contribute in improving the retention,in accordance with the context of the characterization of the drop out. Many of them have to dowith previous contributions on the connection between the high schools and the university andthe orientation and the tutorship at university (Figuera and Torrado, 2000; Alsina et al, 2001; Dorio,Figuera and Torrado, 2001; Figuera, Dorio and Forner, 2003; Feixas and Guillamón, 2004; Gairín,2004; Gairín et al, 2004a,b,c; Gairín, 2005; De Miguel et al, 2005; Álvarez González i Fita, 2005;Rodríguez Espinar et al, 2005; Rodríguez Espinar, 2006; Álvarez et al, 2006; Álvarez González iForner, 2007, and Figuera and Rodríguez, 2007).

Programs on transition from high school to university and universityreception

The beginning of university studies is one of the crucial moments in the integration of the studentsinto the university and, therefore, a fundamental factor in the drop out reduction. The accumulationof negative experiences, the excess of information, the difficulty in arriving to the center, etc, canoverflow the new-entry students and lead them to giving up their university studies.

The first year experience is especially important because the transition between highschool orother access ways to the university has to be a gradual process, that allows students to haveinformation about the possibilities that the new formative can provide them and, also, of thenecessary tools to easily adapt themselves to the university culture. Obviously, the interinstitutionalcoordination facilitates this transition and allows a certain continuity in the education-learning area.

Likewise, the transition to the university is fruit of a personal growth process and means theimprovement of a series of obstacles, as well as the occasion so that the students demonstratetheir capacity to adapt themselves to new contexts. However, we can not suggest that this processis exempt from risks if we consider that the transition means the step from a controlled situationin which the person is already adapted to another one where there are many uncertainties and thestereotypes (mostly negative) and where the reference frames are ignored.

In order to achieve a directed and planned transition, we recommend the design of an action planthat integrates several actions that are already carried out in many faculties and degrees and topropose others, as well as several support tools designed to facilitate the task of the onesresponsible for tutorships in the several degrees and complementary advice materials.

The several performance proposals of the transition plan and reception, mainly directed to potentialuniversity students and the first course students, can not be carried out without considering theresponsible professor’s role and functions of organizing the orientation in high school and the firsttutorship (degrees coordination, first course coordination, students and academic ordering vice-deans and vice-chancellors, and last the responsible ones for the student’s catchment, welcomeand reception programs).


120 <

The Plan reaches the different moments in the highschool-university transition process, that is,from the student being in highschool upto the successful end of his first higher education year.This includes actions such as the orientation and support in the A-level research work and theestablishment of cooperation agreements between high schools and universities (Argon Program),the information and university reception programs (for example, the open house, etc) and thereception programs for the first course students.

Next, we suggest some actions that intend to illustrate the contents of this transition and receptionplan:

n Previous actions to the university entry

The universities have multiplied their actions directed to increase the connection withhighschool, and even though some of these actions have the purpose of university promotionand students catchment, they also facilitate orientation and, therefore, help the transition.Some of the possible actions previous to the university entry| are: open house, visits to thecampus, family day, participation in the Education fair, web of future students, etc.

n Pre-course activities (or propedeutical)

It is a matter of courses that the several degrees offer to the new students to palliate thepossible lacks of previous necessary knowledge to do determinate the degree’s subjects. Insome cases voluntary tests are proposed so that they help themselves appraise theirknowledge and consequently perform.

The propedeutical courses are especially indicated when the students have not done adeterminate subject in the pre-university studies that becomes necessary for the chosenstudies. They are also suitable when they want to strengthen determinate basic knowledge.However, a certain caution in the proliferation of these courses is necessary, since they donot stop being an indicator of an evident disarrangement between highschools anduniversities that perhaps it would be necessary to try and solve through other pathways.

Some of these pre-course activities can be:

- Informative sessions in reduced groups, programmed with the enrolment process and inwhich specific teachers and even experienced students intervene.

- Propedeutical subjects, addressed to improve the knowledge of the degree options, theacademic basis or the study techniques, to learn to write up reports, to solve problems, toprepare examinations, and other options that help the students to optimize their efforts.

- Study techniques sessions, directed to go deeply into concrete aspects like the degreework strategies or the study techniques.

- Subject guides, as development programs that collect usual aspects (objectives, subjectmatters, methodology and evaluation), together with others like the detailed description ofthe meaning of the subjects, the previous requirements, the basic bibliography, the worksstructure, examples of evaluation tests, etc.


> 121

n Reception activities

At present, the universities develop diverse actions to accommodate the young students: theyprovide them information about the registration, the university and its services (sports, cultural,sanitary), the structure of the studies (main, compulsory, optional subjects, specialties oritineraries), the degree duration, the scholarships, the work opportunities, the institutionalsupports (psycho-pedagogical teams, tutorships, etc) and the student’s associations.

So, in this third point, the following actions can be considered:

- Initial reception actions, like games, visits, informative or knowledge meetings, etc, directedto break the individual isolation of the students and to facilitate contacts between thepeople of a same group.

- Informative sessions in small groups, in which a teacher and some veteran students informthe first year students of questions that are considered basic (information about the studies,the student representation, the rights and duties of the students, the functioning ofdeterminate services and programs, the scholarships, etc). Methodologically, theexposures are combined with activities in reduced groups (which, for example, solve casesfor which determinate training is needed) and student’s questions are replied.

- Web and/or students network, where diverse information of interest can be found: thestudent’s guide, the frequently asked questions about the European Higher EducationArea, the practical guide of entry, information on accommodation, the link to « studysupport » (web of the Educational Innovation Unit in Higher Education), forums, supportservices, etc.

- Linguistic reception to the foreign students (e.g., Erasmus).

n Different tutorship modalities

The diversification of tutorship modalities is fundamental in transition and reception plan. Thefunction of the Plan would be to give coherence to the several modalities and to provideconcrete examples and tools for its application.

The importance and the amount of tutorship actions which are necessary to be developed atuniversity and that constitute a whole unit with own entity and differentiated from the rest. Wepresent some in the following epigraph.

Orientation and tutorship programs at university

The orientation and the tutorships are some of the most important processes and strategies ofinformation and orientation in the reduction of the university drop out. However, in our contextthey have been poor, inappropriate and not exempt of limitations: there are few services oforientation for adult students and of continued formation; the students enrolled out of deadlinehave specific problems that sometimes are not solved correctly, and there is an insufficientunderstanding on the part of the students on the courses demands.


122 <

Students have to perceive that they have a suitable support on the part of the university and that thiscan reply to the wide range of academic, social and personal needs of the university student.

The desirable orientation is the one that facilitates the development of the person along theirdegree. The education or development for the degree is the one that provides:

n an integral attention to the people along the different stages of their development;

n an integration along all the formative process and not only in determinate stages of this process;

n a major interconnection with the social and work environment, and

n a more realistic answer to the society demands.

And it includes:n the integration of the degree development into the university curriculum;

n the collaboration between the university and the institutions to keep on giving answer to thenew needs that keep on being generated, and

n developing new competences that give answer to the personal and social needs.

The tutorship programs at university usually combine the informative dimension with the formativeand the interdisciplinary dimension. The first helps the students to find an answer to a cumulus ofquestions linked to the academic institution and the work area, in order to take professionalconsciousness; the second makes possible that the student gets to knows himself, puts hiscapacities on trial, reflects on his personal and professional expectations, and assumes aresponsibility with the society; and the third dimension propitiates the projection of theinterdepartmental and approaches in the educational practice. These programs are sustained in:

n The help offer to the students that incorporate for the first time at university, without expectingthat they ask for it.

n The intervention from the orientation area to answer the needs of these students and to fulfillneeds.

n The interdepartmental approach and the team work, linked to the disciplines of the area, foran inter-departmental projection.

n The incorporation of last course students in the project to be first grade student’s advisors.

n The projection of the training received in their vital cycle and in their professional future.

Some of the types of concrete tutorships are:

n The tutorships between equals: the students of higher courses advise first course students,while sharing experiences and information. It is an easy way to integrate the new studentsinto the campus life and to help them to establish study rhythms and techniques, to prepareexaminations, etc.


> 123

n Personalized tutorships: it proposes that determinate degrees with an important failure ratedevelop personalized tutorships. This tutorship modality is based on the personal and directrelationship between the student and the tutor and combines the academic orientation withthe personal advice. It is a tutorship modality with potential; even though several studies pointout that the students usually make a very restricted use of it if it is implanted in a generalizedway. Therefore, it is reserved for the students who request it voluntarily and it also implicatesits compulsory character, for concrete cases (students that have failed or those that have notattended to a number of examinations of official announcement in determinate subjects,students in special situations, 25 years and older, etc). In any case, the teacher/tutor becomesthe reference person to whom it is necessary to direct any doubt or question.

n Virtual tutorship: it is becoming a versatile resource of great potentiality, in constantprogression and very useful for determinate questions related with the learning and theorientation, or as a complement of other tutorship modalities or as a self-training or self-orientation resource.

n Tuition for students with learning difficulties: it is addressed to students that don’t pass certaintests, that don’t succeed in their studies, and that consider dropping-out of university andneed a very specific help.

Presence of high impact academic activities

In relation to the academic quality of the university programs, an important part of the literatureabout the university drop out suggests that, if these programs are well brought into action, it canimply students to levels that increase their academic performance and have effects in their learningresults in the degrees, in significant learning measures and in the studies persistence. Theseactivities of high impact can include seminars during the first year as well as intellectual experiencesbetween teachers and students, learning communities, learning services, research, live abroadand other experiences that are related with diversity, the practices in institutions and/or coursesand specific and innovating projects. The activities of high impact can be effective with the studentsbecause:

n because by its nature, it puts students in the situation to ask for interaction with teachers andcolleagues on subjects and important subject matters, normally along different periods oftime;

n usually, they ask that the student invests a great amount of time and efforts to tasks with aconcrete and demanding objective;

n taking part in one or more of these activities increases the probabilities that studentsexperience the diversity through the contact with people of different enties and origins;

n the students frequently receive feedback on their performance, even though the high impactactivities structures and the environments are different;

n taking part in these activities offers new opportunities so that the students see how thelearning works in different environments, in and out of the campus.


124 <

The possibility of each student taking part at least in two high impact activities during the universitydegree studies, one of them during the first year and the other later on, related with theirspecialization area, can improve the participation and the implication of the student in the studiesand the academic success. Ideally, the curriculum of each degree should consider them and theyshould be promoted, since often they are activities with a low level of participation.

Some examples are the collaboration scholarships with university departments that theeducational administrations offer like the ones from the Spanish Education Ministry:http://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2008/06/30/pdfs/A28877-28880.pdf) to link students to researchesor practices related with their studies, or the programs of «internal students» (like the one promotedby the University of Seville), in virtue of which the professors can offer the students, since the firstcourse, the collaboration in researches or as a teaching support.

Training programs for the university professors

The quality of the academic program and of the process of education-learning is directly linked tothe university performance and, as we have seen, to the drop out rates. Thus, for example, someunstructured programs, some poor group dynamics, an inappropriate curricular design, someunappropiate methodological and evaluation strategies, a lack of coordination between theprofessors of a same degree, a scarce practical activity or a lack of relation between the contentsand the reality are factors that influence on the students motivation and performance (Martínez,2001). A part of the strategies to ensure the academic satisfaction and the educational quality hasto be linked to a good training of the university professors in pedagogic competences. Besidesthe varied and continued educational training offer, the implantation of the EEES is an exceptionalopportunity to update the competences and the educational approaches of the professors.

Some examples for the initial training and the update of the university profesors are:

n The Unit for Innovation in Higher Education Teaching of the Autonomous University ofBarcelona (UAB), which has the purpose of promoting the educational competences of theuniversity professors related to the education-learning process (design/planning,development and evaluation).

n The training program of the university professors of the University of Barcelona (UB), with awide and diverse proposal of formative activities to each official announcement.

n The compulsory «reception program» for the new entry educational staff of the PolytechnicUniversity of Catalonia (UPC), that, as far as presenting the UPC as an organization, itpromotes the academic competences of this staff.

n El Initial Training in Higher Education Teaching of the Pompeu Fabra University (UPF),, whichhas the purpose to facilitate the didactic adequacy of the teachers in the characteristics ofthe new EEES.


> 125

In the international area, the case of England is remarkable, where all teachers who want to giveclasses have to have a certificate of pedagogic training. At King's College London, as an example,the pedagogic training of the teachers is promoted across the King's Learning Institute(http://www.kcl.ac.uk/learningteaching). This institute has established a certificate of educationalsufficiency (Statement of Teaching Proficiency) that considers the teacher’s value in four big areas:(1) strategies and didactic techniques and session management; (2) subject knowledge andapplication; (3) evaluation and follow-up, and (4) professional knowledge and development.

Social programs

From the several university drop out models and studies that we have revised, have repeatedlyhighlighted the importance of the social factors in the university student’s success and, therefore,in the reduction in the drop out rates (Spady, 1970; Tinto, 1975; Bean and Eaton, 2001-2002, andGlogowska, Young and Lockier, 2007). The main causes of the university drop out that we havecommented on are the social and personal difficulties to adapt to the university environment andto new lifestyle or to making new friends at university, and personal or family problems thatinfluence the studies with other priorities and opportunities.

According to Braxton and Mundy (2001-2002), one of the characteristics of the universityinstitutions with effective retention programs are their commitment with the development of socialand educational support communities where the students integrate themselves as competentmembers.

In this sense, some of the policies that have been initiated from universities from all over the worldare (Berger, 2001-2002, and Kuh, 2001-2002):

n Providing personal and social support to facilitate the integration of the new students into theuniversity community.

n Assuring that all the services to the student (from personal to financial) are operative andaccessible.

n Providing the students clear information and communication pathways on the objectives, thevalues, the policies and the procedures of the campuses.

n Offering the students the possibility to take part in the decision making that affects them.

n ActiveIy implicating the students in the political life of the university.

n Strengthening the relationships with the external context.

n Promoting the studies on the university experience beyond the classrooms fringe.


126 <

Taking into account these policies and, from a much more operating level, some of the strategiesand actions that can help to counterbalance the drop out social causes are:

n Creating communities and social networks that promote the relationships and thecommunication among the students. Using of one of the multiple social software that the ICToffer us can help us carry out this task.

n Developing tutorship programs between equals or tutor teachers.

n Improving the information systems for the families, so that their importance during theincorporation of the student in the university environment is reinforced.

n Creating a cultural and social agenda in the university campus. The Cultural Year of the UAB(http://www.uab.es/anydelafisica/default.htm) is an example of this type of proposals.

n Promoting the students assemblies and associations creation with capacity of decision andparticipation in the social, cultural and political life of the university (for example, sport teams,musical formations, theatrical groups, chess clubs, or student councils).

> 127

GENERAL CONCLUSIONSAND FUTURE CHALLENGES

CONCLUSIONSThe educational administrations and the society are conscious of the political, economic and socialproblems that the university degrees drop out means. As an international phenomenon, then,these problems are not foreign to the Catalan university, as the theoretical explanations issuedalong all of this report demonstrate it. In checking out the amplitude of the empirical studies carriedout by several European and American universities, corroborate the success of promoting anytype of effort that allows to know the drop out causes in order to offer, consequently, the strategiesthat, in an individual or collective way, can be undertaken to reduce it.

I. THE STATE OF THE QUESTIONStatistics and international analyses of different researches demonstrate that nowadays asignificant percentage of the population accesses the university degrees, but that, at the sametime, the number of people who give up their studies too soon also increases (about 29%),influenced often by work causes. Different reports of the OCDE and other organizations havealerted of the high drop out rates and the unavoidable consequences that derive from it, social aswell as personal ones.

Since there is an existence of different realities, the drop out phenomenon can be analyzed fromgeopolitical and sociological point of view:

1. From the European perspective, the access to the university and the interest in obtaininguniversity degrees has significantly been increased, with a wide range of programs thatguarantee the advance in the knowledge society, a better and major transition of fromsecondary school to university and an acceptable increase of success in the higher degrees.

Even so, we can deduce from different reports of the OCDE and other organizations that eventhough the rates of European students in higher education have been increased, we mustacknowledge that more than 30% of the enrolled people give up or does not finish theundertaken studies. As a matter of fact, the survival rates (calculated from the number ofgraduates and the number of new enrolled students) are around 71%, and Spain overcomesthem in 3% (data of 2008).


128 <

2. From the prospect of the American continent (USA and Canada), the data on persistence andperformance, the drop out of specific collectives and the academic as well as non academicfactors are analyzed. In the first case, there is a significant number of students who change ofcenter or give up their studies; in the second case, a great amount of students combinesstudies and work (between 52% and 62%) and dedicates only half a day to both tasks. Theacademic and non academic factors are carefully analyzed because of its relation with theretention rates. The researches of the Latin American part of the continent (that suffer a lack ofinstitutional data that prevents from developing rigorous studies) demonstrate how severe thedrop out problem is. For example, only 43% of those who graduated in higher education, admitthat they did it in the established period to do it, except in Cuba.

3. From other but not less significant perspectives, we must consider that Spain is not a countrythat attracts many international students, even though it has a greater proportion ofinternational students in the advanced research programs than other countries. We alsoobserve a certain delay in the women’s expressed university aspirations. As consequent, it isevident that although the enrollment fees at universities are low, there is a whole segment ofthe population that should benefit from more public loans or from scholarships in order toavoid their drop out.

The research attempts to give, not only to Catalonia, but also to the rest of Spain and otherinternational countries, an answer to these questions and to many others such as political, economic,family and pedagogic ones. Following the suppositions made clear in the previous chapters, thisempirical study has reached enough concrete conclusions on this state of things and, on this basis―but without despising the doubts that still soar on the affirmations of the report ―, we proposeuniversity managers and researchers some suggestions to reduce the possible harms of theuniversity drop out and to continue investigating more thoroughly its causes and effects, in order toavoid the drop out and favoring the retention.

II. SCOPE OF DROP OUT IN CATALONIAThe drop out analysis, and therefore, of the academic persistence, at the Catalan university, in amacro scale (or generic for the whole of universities) as well as in a micro scale (specific areas), hasconsidered significant variables that are present before leaving the course (socio-demographic andacademic), as well as which are the degrees that are more often dropped-out of (typical demandsof that degree and academic performance) and which was the students situation after the drop out.

The generic analysis demonstrates that there are no significant differences between the Catalanuniversities, since the drop out, as a social phenomenon, affects all educations and degrees withlittle significant differences in relation to the rest of Spanish universities. However, we do finddifferences between the different studies and degrees. Taking into account that we have to makeprudent comparisons because not all the data comes from the same years, we can conclude, on

GENERAL CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE CHALLENGES

> 129

the one hand, that the drop out distribution corresponds in a 40% to the Social Sciences area, ina 29.6% to the degrees in the Technical area and in a 17.2% to Humanities; and on the other, thatthe drop out rate is higher in rest of Spanish universities (according to the data of the SpanishUniversity’s Vice-Chancellors Conference CRUE, 2008).

The specific analysis, that is based on the student’s profile at each moment of his academictrajectory, demonstrates that, regarding the age, the people between 26 and 30 years of age areless persistent in their studies because of work causes and economic situations. Regarding thegender, it is demonstrated that the boys are less persistent than the girls (51% versus 48.6% dropout, respectively). The social origin does not seem to have great influence upon the persistencerates (we must clarify that the high percentage of no answer does not allow us to extract clearconclusions). Depending on the high school modality, 18.4% of the people who have gone thru auniversity entrance examination out of Catalonia and 29% of the people who transferred to othercommunities or countries from which we don’t have data. The students coming from theVocational Education Training and the 25 years or older systems present a quite significant figure(14.17%) of the total drop outs. On the other hand, the drop out affects in a higher degree thosestudents who have had a lower access grade. Finally, we can affirm that the drop out rates bydegrees fluctuate between 20% and 60%, and that the analysis gets complicated when the hugevariety of studies and their conditions are taken into account.

From the analysis of the academic dynamics, we can ascertained the following tendencies: a) that,in quantitative terms, the student who comes from A-levels drops-out of the university studies morethan the students coming from the higher grade of Vocational Training Education; b) that there isa significant drop out rate among those people who come from other autonomous communities;c) that Humanities and Social Sciences are the most favorable drop out areas; d) that drop out and low level of academic performance are very correlated; e) that more of 60%of the people who give up their studies do not re-enter the university system again.

From the typology of studies, we detected that all the Catalan universities suffer the drop outconsequences, and that the differences between them are not very significant. The gradation goesfrom more to less starting at the UPC, the UB, the UAB, etc, with the UdL, in last position. Theseresults vary when analyzing the degrees (with figures that fluctuate between 20% and 60%), eventhough the education-learning cultures, the didactic approaches, the planning and theprogramming of the curricula, the facilities and many other variables make the comparative basisvery heterogeneous. This heterogeneity often prevents the scientific comparison.

These two types of analysis at a macro and micro scale are very indicative, but, at the same time,are maybe a little limited by the fact that the data with which it has been worked on have notallowed to create more and better indicators not even to originate more variables, and, especially,because they can not compare themselves with those of the global enrollment. As a matter of fact,only a part of the population has been studied: precisely the one that drops-out of their universitystudies.


130 <

III. TOWARDS A DEEPER DROP OUT UNDERSTANDINGFrom the research methodology, it has believed convenient to compensate the study of the database with a field study by survey (through a survey and an interview). In effect, an accurateapproach of the analysis levels has made possible the creation of two instruments: the survey, thecontents of which have been validated by experts and consists of six sections that collects basicpersonal information, academic, of satisfaction, economic, specific personal and social factors;and the interview, structured in eleven sections that aspire to identify the drop out explanatorymodel. Through these instruments five degrees related to different areas of education have beenrevised.

The results of the field study with the survey and the interview have made evident the importanceto bring up this type of studies to extract arguments that explain why people do not persist in thestarted studies and why the need of counting with a wider sample appears. The drop out motives�or of no persistence � consist especially in the lack of motivation for the studies and, therefore, inthe posterior difficulty in fully integrating into the academic and university life; in the difficulties inreconciling the academic and the work life; in the lack of economic independence; in the fact thatthe institutions do not offer interesting programs from the practical and methodological point ofview; in the lack of services that get close to the student, as the tutorship, the reception programsor the professional orientation previous to the entry and in posterior stages (in medium and longterms), and in the lack of connection with the reality of the work and business world (prospects ofwork insertion congruent with the study plans).

The specific stories that have been examined have approached us to understanding the studentthat drops-out (holistic vision) and to the circumstances that accompany their decision, eithervoluntary or imposed. In this sense, the decision to give up their studies concentrates in a concretetime of the student’s academic trajectory (58% of the students that give up their studies does it inthe first year of the degree). However, the decision to drop out obeys to a process, that is, to a setof personal and contextual circumstances that influence on the decisions in a significant way.

This analysis allows confirming the thesis of the existence of moments of special sensitivity facingthe drop out decision and the need to reinforce the orientation and the personal and academictutorship at university. The first year of university is especially a critic. The first university experiencesmean a first balance of the «congruence» between the students options and elections and areessential to contrast the adequacy of their projects and reality expectations; the implications aboutthe motivation, the action engine, are clear. In this first year, the relationship of the students withtheir peers and the integration into the academic learning environment and in the dynamics of thenew academic community significantly contribute in constructing a belonging feeling.


> 131

IV. STRATEGIES AND RESOURCES TO FAVOR RETENTIONThe advance of the European and American studies allows broadening the range of strategiesand resources to strengthen the retention, some of which can be adapted and implemented toour universities. The interventions directed to improve the persistence at university have to do withthe orientation in the studies choice and of university (before the entry) and with orientation duringthe incorporation at university. To suitably orientate or guide the student in the choice of studiesand university, either in the concrete entry moment or during all the process of incorporation tothe centre’s culture, it is important for student retention.

So that this transition towards the university studies becomes satisfactory, it is necessary to startoff transition and reception plans that incorporate tools and the necessary supports to avoid thedrop out. These plans have to count, specifically, with the institution implication and thecommitment, but also of all the university community. In this sense, it is necessary to achieve thecomplementary action with diverse orientation (university, center or faculty and degrees).

Studies support

The continuity of the studies is often conditioned by the studies support that students receive.Thus, all those supports that emanate from guiding actions become important for the personaland academic development of the students. The combination of guiding and advice interventionsaddressed to the students as a group or in a personal way, like the welcoming and reception day,the psycho-pedagogic attention among others are key to offer a better information and guide inthe studies. A plan of university tutorship integrates these objectives and makes them possiblethrough various modalities of personal, academic and professional attention and didactic andorganization resources.

The management and the academic quality

The flexible organization of the studies and the implantation of modular systems seem to have apositive impact in the student’s retention. The poor motivation for the studies is also related withthe quality of the academic program. Because of that, it is necessary to especially revise theeducational methodologies and to insure pertinent activities, with updated contents and learningwith higher impacts, making more use, of education-learning reflexive strategies, collaborative andinnovative, with the complement of new technologies and more autonomous work of the student.

Higher education funding

The work needs and the economic limitations often make the university continuation impossible.There is a whole segment of population that should benefit from higher public loans or scholarshipsof diverse nature in order to avoid that they gives up their studies, and it would be necessary toput financial charges aside which can have a negative impact on students, whenever this ispossible.


132 <

Attaining high retention rates benefits not only the institution and the society, but also studentsthat will not live failure situations and will increase their performance. The comparison betweencountries, institutions and student population shows significant differences in the institutionalapproaches, policies and organization, in the studies plans, in funding and in the student’stypology. For these reasons, it is complex to promote concrete pedagogic solutions of genericcharacter. Even so, we have suggested global and specific strategies distributed in the fourmoments of the academic trajectory, we have presented the contributions of different institutionsin several countries, and we have emphasized the programs and actions that we believe that aremore suitable for the Catalan universities: in the secondary schools, preparatory actions for thetransition and the training in generic work and study competences; in the universities,propedeutical activities, reception and tutorial, social support programs, services and associativeand community dynamics, besides other complementary activities of high intellectual andacademic impact. These strategies, obviously, require a specific training of the teaching staff.

V. DECALOGUE OF FUTURE PROPOSALS AND CHALLENGESThe research process has also continued to shine light on shortcomings which require furtherreflection on innovative proposals and challenges.

From the methodological perspective

1. It is necessary to have more data on the internal and external life circumstances of the studentswho drop out of the university education, and to validate and make the data collectioninstruments reliable (some linked to the enrollment documentation). This research shouldbring up the study from a longitudinal and/or process prospect from the referential data ofthe global population and reinforce the systematization and the coordination among all theCatalan university institutions.

2. The research results will be able to be extrapolated to the problems of other universities ifmore indicators can be constructed, in consonance with the made proposals, that makecomparative studies possible and that consider the university students as well as the pre-university students.

3. The research brings up the thesis that the drop out is a multi-factor phenomenon, in the sensethat its explanation arises from the interaction of a wide set of personal and contextual factors.This interaction explains the importance to validate integrating models that facilitate theelaboration of precocious diagnosis instruments, the identification of the risk collectives andthe design of intervention proposals suitable for the different realities.


> 133

As for the specific proposals to improve the data and the current system’s indicators, wedifferentiate between the entry and/or trajectory indicators coming from the person (students) andthe ones coming from the institution (degrees/center).

ENTRYINDICATORS

TRAJECTORYINDICATORS

The previous academic background: globaland specific performance, knowledge onthe transversal competences.

Of motivation: motivation and expectationlevel

Of dedication: assistance to the academicactivities, time dedicated to study

Motivation and expectation: motivation andexpectations on success levels

Academic integration: management skills onthe personal study, satisfaction with theinstitution, interaction with the teachers

Social integration: level of interaction withthe equals and satisfaction

Social and family support

Of the origin centre’s profile: socio-culturalcontext of the students and indicators ofthe center’s quality

Of the transition support actions (typologyof actions and support strategies thedecision making)

Theoretical profile of the degree access andlevel of adjustment to the student’s profile

Of the transition support and retentionactions (typology of actions and qualityindicators, classroom atmosphere...)

Of the study plan characteristics: planningand education organization plans,evaluation and demand criteria, profile ofthe teaching staff

R1. Establishing a permanent observatory on the university drop out in order to foresee it and reducing it.

R2. Promote and fund researches linked to the university drop out phenomenon that collect data to search forindicators that allow comparisons and to elaborate valid and reliable measuring instruments.

From the organizational structure of the institutions

4. In the previous period of university entry, it would be necessary to watch over a majorcongruence among the secondary school studies and the higher education through all theacademic and personal transitions favoring mechanisms. Likewise, it is necessary to reinforcethe tutorship at the end of the non compulsory secondary school in order to foresee illogicalattitudes of students in risk of dropping out of their studies and which could easily be avoided.At the same time, these interventions should connect with the university orientation services(guaranteeing an accurate follow-up of all the students during the first year) and with a majorinformation to the families.

PERSON SYSTEM

Associated challenges


134 <

5. Besides institutional and academic reception performances for the students who incorporateat the university system, the universities should intensify the diversification of tutorialmodalities: between equals (student advisors who share experiences, information, etc);personalized (to solve any type of doubt or question from the direct student-teacherrelationship); virtual (as a complement to other modalities, for the self-training, etc); for studentswith learning difficulties (to offer help and support to the students who need a very specifichelp), and of others like sessions of study techniques, of tests preparation, etc.

6. It would be necessary to improve the pedagogic and organizational quality of the highereducation studies through a temporary progression before the students enter, during theirdegree and after they have achieved the degree, favoring the several transitions to the utmost;carrying out improvements which facilitated partial attendance and flexible methodologiesthat allowed the autonomous work of the students who need to reconcile work life andacademic life, and to establish different formative itineraries and personal development plansdepending on the idiosyncrasy of each student.

Likewise, it would be necessary to develop more flexibility in the university programs thatforesaw the figure of the part-time student, so that the access and success at university werefacilitated to those collectives that for diverse reasons (economic, occupational or familiar)can not access it following the traditional majority approaches. Obviously, this type of offermeans a cost that the university system will have to appraise.

It is also necessary to foster the university associations, so much from the academic point ofview (study groups, thematic networks, etc) as for sociocultural (musical groups, theater,cinema, etc) and sport ones as well. In this way, the feeling of belonging to the university isstressed and the drop out probability is reduced.

7. This improvement of the pedagogic and organizational quality should affect the accesssystems, contents, educational methodologies, evaluation systems of the teaching staff andof the students, guiding system and follow-up of the graduates work insertion. At the sametime, it is necessary to reinforce the academic and personal orientation with university andcenter tutorship plans that include in a contextualized way the detection of needs, whichspecify the objectives and which delimit the typology of tutorship actions in relation to theseveral moments, the organizational aspects and the evaluation.


> 135

From the administrations and the social agents

8. Politicians, administrations and institutions, in collaboration with the universities and thehighschools, should assume the difficulties and the negative consequences that the studentdrop out entails from the economic, sociological and personal perspective, and to introducethe pertinent changes to reduce the impact.

9. In students support and orientation systems the business organizations and the unions havevery much to say, to the professional orientation of the youngsters and should considerthemselves as active subjects. These interventions should offer the students academicinformation and professional specifies about the contents, the job opportunities and theadvantages of the different careers and degrees that they are within their scope.

10. Social agents, institutions and media ―conscious of their responsibility and influence on thepopulation― should promote joint actions to increase the university persistence figures, as acounterpoint to the manifest interest in the catchment of new inscriptions.

R3.Connecting the orientation system of the secondary education with the university system one to favor thetransition.

R4. Going deep into the curricular and organizational implications of the university access for people of 40years and older and without secondary school studies.

R5. Reinforce the relationships between university and students from the social, political and academic pointof view since the first course, for example with the creation of new collaborative students profile.

R6. Watching over the continuous training of the university teaching staff in communication competences, inthe use of educational methodology, in tutorship strategies and in curricular diversification according to thetypology of students.

R7. Establishing connection and collaboration policies among administrations (Work, Education, universities,social agents) that allow effective curricular university flexibility.

R8. Developing strategies and instruments linked to the accreditation and the homologation of the workexperience of the adult people.

R9. Creating an office to promote the retention of the minority collectives.

R10. Promoting services and orientation of the companies in the process of university student incorporation,as well as the contact between companies, unions and universities to appraise aspects related with theuniversity training and its linkage to the work world.




136 <

The research team expects that the obtained results help in understanding the scope of theuniversity drop out based on the series of global data and to appraise the diverse institutionalrealities. It expects to also have given answer to fundamental questions, like: why does a persongive up their studies?; is there a typology of student who drops-out of the university education?;which are the sociological, economic and family causes that lead to the drop out?; which are thevariables and factors that have a fundamental role in this phenomenon?, and which psycho-pedagogic and didactic strategies are necessary to apply in order to increase the retention?

In spite of the research approach, the collected data and its analysis many of the objectives thatwere wished have been attained, more researches in relation to this aim would still be necessaryin order to be able to understand better the etiology and the solutions of such a complex andcurrent phenomenon. Thus, we can consider questions like: does the university drop out inCatalonia constitute a true problem for the Administration and for the citizenship? is the drop outsoon after having started the career or once it is already started a great concern to the politiciansresponsible for the tertiary educational sector and those of the work area? And is it a phenomenonworthy of being analyzed? is the same importance given to the retention policies than the studentcatchment ones? When approaching these questions, it is necessary always bear in mind that,very often, the figures of each country or of each university conceal different enough realities.

«The secret of the most successful retention programs is not a secret in any way, but the reaffirmation ofsome of the important basis of the higher education. There is neither a great secret and nor a great mysteryto be discovered. Although the successful retention programs require some competences and aconsiderable effort, they do not require sophisticated machinery. It is within reach of all institutions to pay aserious attention to the nature of their educational mission and what duty it entails. The successful retentionis based on a successful education» (Tinto, 1990, p. 4)

> 137

BIBLIOGRAPHY

AGÈNCIA PER A LA QUALITAT DEL SISTEMA UNIVERSITARI DE CATALUNYA (AQU) (2007). El sistemauniversitari públic català 2000-2005: una perspectiva des de l’avaluació d’AQU Catalunya.Barcelona: AQU Catalunya.

ALSINA, C. [coord.]; ALSINET, J.; CARBONELL, J.; COMET, J.; COROMINAS, E.; FERNÁNDEZ, E.; FIGUERA,P.; GALLIFA, J.; GRIFOLL, J.; PASTOR, E. (2001). Marc general per a una bona transició delsestudiants de batxillerat a la universitat. Barcelona: Agència per a la Qualitat del SistemaUniversitari a Catalunya.

ALTAMIRA RODRÍGUEZ, A. A. (1997). El análisis de las trayectorias escolares como herramienta deevaluación de la actividad académica universitaria. Un modelo ad hoc para la UniversidadAutónoma de Chiapas: el caso de la Escuela de Ingeniería Civil. Thesis for teaching ineducation. Universidad Autónoma de Chiapas. 230 p.

ÁLVAREZ GONZÁLEZ, M.; FITA LLADÓ, E. (2005). «La intervención orientadora en la transiciónBachillerato-Universidad». Bordón, vol. 57, num. 1, p. 5-27.

ÁLVAREZ GONZÁLEZ, M. (2008). «La tutoría académica en el EEES». Revista Interuniversitaria deFormación del Profesorado, vol. 22, num. 1, p. 71-88.

ÁLVAREZ GONZÁLEZ, M. I FORNER, A. [coord.]; CARRASCO, S.; DÍAZ, A.; DORIO, I.; FONRODONA, G.;GONZÁLEZ, E.; GRACENEA, M.; PERÓ, M.; RODRÍGUEZ ESPINAR, S.; RODRÍGUEZ, M.; TORRADO, M.(2007). La tutoria universitaria: guia pràctica. Barcelona: Ed. ICE, UB / AUR. PublicacionsMultimèdia.

ÁLVAREZ, P.; ASENSIO, I.; FORNER, A.; SOBRADO, L. (2006). «Los planes de acción tutorial en launiversidad». A: Investigación en innovación educativa. Madrid: La Muralla, p. 147-206.

ANUIES (1986). Glosario de la educación superior. Mèxic DF: Asociación Nacional deUniversidades e Instituciones de Educación Superior.

ATTINASI, L. C. (1986). Getting in: Mexican American Students’ Perceptions of Their College-Going Behavior with Implications for Their Freshman Year Persistence in the University.Ponència de l’ASHE Annual Meeting de 1986 (San Antonio, TX, EUA). ERIC 268 869.

BEAN, J. P. (1980). «The synthesis and test of causal model of student attrition». Research inHigher Education, vol. 12, num. 2, p. 155-187.

BEAN, J. P. (1983). «The application of a model of turnover in work organizations to the studentattrition process». Review of Higher Education, vol. 6, núm. 2, p. 129-148.

BEAN, J. P. (1995). «An approach/avoidance behavioral model of college student attrition».Research in Higher Education, vol. 36, núm. 6, p. 617-645.


138 <

BEAN, J.; EATON, S. B. (2001-2003). «The psychology underlying successful retention practices».Journal of College Student Retention, vol. 3, num. 1, p. 73-89.

BEAUPÈRE, N. [et al.] (2007). L’abandon des études supérieures. Rapport réalisé pourl’Observatoire national de la vie étudiante. París: La Documentation Française. (Col. Panoramades Savoirs)

BECKER, G. S. (1964). Human Capital: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis with SpecialReference to Education. Nova York: National Bureau of Economic Research.

BERKNER, L. [et al.] (2007). Persistence and Attainment of 2003-04. Beginning PostsecondaryStudents: After Three Years. US Departament of Education. Institute of Education Sciences.National Center for Education Statistics.<http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2007169> [Looked up: 3 July 2008].

BERGER, J. B.; LYON, S. C. (2005). «Past to present: A historical look at retention». A: SEIDMAN, A.[ed.]. College Student Retention: Formula for Student Success. Greenwood Publishing Group.

BERGER, J. B. (2001-2002). «Understanding the organizational nature of student persistence:Empirically-based recommendations for practice». Journal of College Student Retention, vol. 3,num. 1, p. 3-21.

BRICALL, J. M. (2000). Universidad 2mil. Madrid: Conferencia de Rectores de las UniversidadesEspañolas (CRUE). DL 2000.

BORDERÍAS, C.; CARRASCO, C. (1994). Las mujeres y el trabajo. Rupturas conceptuales.Barcelona: Icària.

BORONAT, J. (2000). «Enfoque comunitario y dimensión personalizada de la orientaciónuniversitaria». A: SALMERÓN, H. LÓPEZ, V. L. Orientación educativa en las universidades.Granada: Grupo Editorial Universitario.

BOURDAGES, L. (1996). «La persistance et la no-persistance aux études universitaires sur campuset en formation à distance». DistanceS, vol. 1, num. 1, p. 51-67.

BRAXTON, J. M. [ed.] (2000). Reworking the Student Departure Puzzle. Nashville (TN): VanderbiltUniversity.

BRAXTON, J. M.; MUNDY, M. E. (2001-2002). «Powerful institutional levers to reduce collegestudent departure». Journal of College Student Retention, vol. 3, num. 1, p. 91-118.

BRAXTON, J. M.; BRAY, N. J.; BERGER, J. B. (2000). «Faculty teaching skills and their influence onthe college student departure process». Journal of College Student Development, vol. 41, num.2, p. 215-227.

BRAXTON, J. M.; JOHNSON, R. M.; SHAW-SULLIVAN, A. (1997). «Appraising Tinto’s theory of collegestudent departure». A: SMART, J. C. [ed.]. Higher Education: A Handbook of Theory andResearch. Vol. 12. New York: Agathon Press, p. 107-164.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

> 139

BRAXTON, J.; HIRSCHY, A.; MCCLENDON, S. (2004). Understanding and Reducing College StudentDeparture. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

BRUNEFORTH, M.; MOTIVANS, A.; ZHANG, Y. (2004). Investing in the Future: Financing Education inLatin America and the Caribbean. Mont-real: UNESCO Institute for Statistics. (UIS WorkingPapers; 1). [Looked up: 3 July 2008].

CABRERA, A. F.; CASTAÑEDA, M. B.; NORA, A. (1992). «The role of finances in the persistenceprocess: A structural model». Research in Higher Education, vol. 33, num. 5, p. 143-164.

CABRERA, A. F.; NORA, A.; CASTAÑEDA, M. B. (1993). «College persistence: Structural equationsmodeling test of an integrated model of student retention». Journal of Higher Education, vol. 64,num. 2, p. 123-139.

CABRERA L.; BETHENCOURT J. T.; ÁLVAREZ P.; GONZÁLEZ M. (2006). «El problema del abandono enlos estudios universitarios». RELIEVE, vol. 12, p. 171-203.<http://www.uv.es/RELIEVE/v12n2/RELIEVEv12n2_1.htm> [Looked up: 15 November 2008].

CARDOSO, A. R.; PORTELA, M.; SÁ, C.; ALEXANDRE, F. (2006). Demand for Higher EducationPrograms: The Impact of the Bologna Process. Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA). (IZADiscussion Papers; 2532)

CHEN, X.; CARROLL, C. D. (2007). Part-time Undergraduates in Postsecondary Education. 2003-04. US Departament of Education. Institute of Education Sciences. National Center forEducation Statistics. <http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2007165> [Lookedup: 3 July 2008].

CHOY, S. P. (2002). Access and Persistence: Findings from 10 Years of Longitudinal Research onStudents. Washington: American Council on Education.<http://www.ccsse.org/publications/access_persistence.pdf> [Looked up: 3 July 2008].

CINGANO, F.; CIPOLLONE, P. (2007). University Drop-Out: The Case of Italy. (Temi di Discussionedel Servizio Studi; 626).<http://www.bancaditalia.it/pubblicazioni/econo/temidi/td07/td626_07/td626/en_tema_626.pdf> [Looked up: 3 July 2008].

DEARING, R. (1997). Informe Dearing. <https://bei.leeds.ac.uk/Partners/NCIHE/>.

DORIO, I.; FIGUERA, P.; TORRADO, M. (2001). «La transición a la universidad: perfiles diferencialespor áreas disciplinares». A: Investigación y evaluación educativas en la sociedad delconocimiento. La Coruña: AIDIPE.

DONOSO, S.; SCHIEFELBEIN, E. (2007). «Análisis de los modelos explicativos de retención deestudiantes en la universidad: una visión desde la desigualdad social». Estudios Pedagógicos,vol. xxxiii, num. 1, p. 7-27.

D’HOMBRES, B. (2007). The Impact of University Reforms on Dropout Rates and Students’Status: Evidence from Italy. CRELL, Centre for Research on Lifelong Learning. EuropeanCommission, Joint Research Centre.


140 <

ENGSTROM, C.; TINTO, V. (2008). «Access without suport is not opportunity». Change, January-February, p. 46-50.

ESCANDELL BERMÚDEZ, O. (1997). Causas del abandono en la Universidad de las Palmas de GranCanaria. Universidad de las Palmas de Gran Canarias. Formación de Profesorado. Doctoralthesis.

ESCUDERO, T. (1999). «Indicadores de rendimiento académico: una experiencia en la Universidadde Zaragoza». A: Indicadores en la universidad: información y decisiones. Plan Nacional deEvaluación de la Calidad de las Universidades. Madrid: MEC-Consejo de Universidades, p. 251-262.

ESCUELA NACIONAL DE BIBLIOTECONOMÍA Y ARCHIVONOMÍA (2004). Programa integral defortalecimiento institucional 2001-2006 de la ENBA, v. 3.0. Mèxic DF.

ETHINGTON, C. A. (1990). «A psychological model of student persistence». Research in HigherEducation, vol. 31, num. 3, p. 266-269.

FEIXAS, M.; GUILLAMÓN, C. (2004). La transición de los estudiantes durante la carrera universitariay el apoyo institucional. Actas del VIII Congreso Interuniversitario de Organización deInstituciones Educativas (Seville, 10-12 November 2004), p. 919-933.

FELOUZIS, G. (1997). «Les étudiants et la sélection universitaire». Revue Française de Pédagogie,núm. 119, p. 91-106.

FIGUERA, P.; TORRADO, M. (2000). «El proceso de transición del bachillerato a la universidad:factores de éxito». Quaderns Institucionals, num. 2, p. 41-55.

FIGUERA, P.; DORIO, I.; FORNER, A. (2003). «Las competencias académicas previas y el apoyofamiliar en la transición a la universidad». Revista de Investigación Educativa, vol. 21, num. 2, p.349-369.

FIGUERA, P.; RODRÍGUEZ, M. L. [coord.] (2007). Reflexiones en torno al balance de competencias.Concepto y herramientas para la construcción del proyecto profesional. Barcelona: EdicionsUniversitat de Barcelona.

FISHBEIN, M.; AJZEN, I. (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theoryand Research. Reading (MA): Addison-Wesley.

GAIRÍN, J. (2004). La transición entre etapas educativas. Actas del VIII CongresoInteruniversitario de Organización de Instituciones Educativas (Seville, 10-12 November 2004),p. 887-893.

GAIRÍN, J. [coord.]; FEIXAS, M.; FRANCH, J.; GUILLAMÓN, C.; QUINQUER, D. (2003). Un modelo para lageneralización de un programa de tutoría universitaria. Simposio «Estrategias de formación parael cambio organizacional», Equip de Desenvolupament Organitzacional (Casa de laConvalescència, 18-20 December 2003). Barcelona: Praxis.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

> 141

GAIRÍN, J. [coord.]; FEIXAS, M.; GUILLAMÓN, C.; QUINQUER, D. (2004a). L’acollida dels estudiants deprimer. Pla de transició i d’incorporació a la universitat. Projecte presentat al Vicerectoratd’Afers Acadèmics de la UAB [unpublished document].

GAIRÍN, J.; FEIXAS, M.; GUILLAMÓN, C.; QUINQUER, D. (2004b). «La tutoría académica en elescenario europeo de educación superior». Revista Interuniversitaria de Formación delProfesorado, vol. 18, num. 1, p. 66-77.

GAIRÍN, J.; FEIXAS, M.; FRANCH, J.; GUILLAMÓN, C.; QUINQUER, D. (2004c). «Elementos para laelaboración de planes de tutoría en la universidad». Revista Contextos Educativos, num. 6-7, p.21-42.

GAIRÍN, J.; FEIXAS, M.; GUILLAMÓN, C.; QUINQUER, D. (2005). El pla de tutoria a la universitat.Bellaterra: Servei de Publicacions de la UAB.

GALLIFA, J. (1990). Models cognitius de l’aprenentatge. Síntesi conceptual de les teories dePiaget, Vigotski, Bruner, Ausubel, Sternbeg i Feuerstein. Moià: Ed. Raima.

GARCÍA AREITO, L. (1986). Análisis de la eficacia de la educación superior a distancia enExtremadura. Doctoral thesis. Madrid: UNED.

GARLAND (1993). «Ethnography penetrates the “I didn’t have time” rationale to elucidate higherorder reasons for distance education withdrawal». Research in Distance Education, vol. 5, núm.1-2, p. 6-11.

GIOVAGNOLI, P. I. (2002). Determinantes de la deserción y graduación universitaria: una aplicaciónutilizando modelos de duración. Tesi doctoral, UNLP. <http://www.depeco.econo.unlp.edu.ar>[Looked up: 3 July 2008].

GLOGOWSKA, M.; YOUNG, P.; LOCKYER, L. (2007). «Should I go or should I stay? A study of factorsinfluencing students' decisions on early leaving». Active Learning in Higher Education, vol. 8,num. 1, p. 63-77.

GONZÁLEZ, L. E. (2006). Repitencia y deserción en América Latina.<http://www.intercontacto.com/gente/?id=256&idSec=2&idCat=3&idSCat=11&idSCat1=115&accion=detalle> [Looked up: 3 July 2008].

GUÀRDIA, J. (2000). «La gestión de las acciones de orientación universitaria: una cuestión deestructura». A: SALMERÓN, H. LÓPEZ, V. L. Orientación educativa en las universidades. Granada:Grupo Editorial Universitario.

GUICHARD, J. (1995). La escuela y las representaciones de futuro de los adolescentes.Barcelona: Laertes.

HERNÁNDEZ, F.; MAQUILLÓN, J. (2000). Enfoques de aprendizaje en alumnos de COU y Reformaque pretenden acceder a la Universidad y alumnos de primer curso de carrera. Actes delCongrés d’Orientació Universitària (Barcelona, 15-16 December 1998). Barcelona: EdicionsUB/GOU.


142 <

HERNÁNDEZ, J. [dir.] (2008). La universidad española en cifras. Madrid: Conferencia de Rectoresde las Universidades Españolas. <http://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2008/06/30/pdfs/A28877-28880.pdf> [Looked up: 3 July 2008].

HIGHER EDUCATION STATISTICS AGENCY (2006). Resources of Higher Education Institutions 2005-2006. <http://www.hesa.ac.uk/> [Looked up: 3 July 2008].

HIMMEL, E. (2002). «Modelos de análisis de la deserción estudiantil en la educación superior».Calidad de la Educación, 2nd semester, p. 91-108.

HORN, L.; BERGER, R.; CARROLL, C. D. (2004). College Persistence on the Rise? Changes in 5-YearDegree Completion and Postsecondary Persistence Rates Between 1994 and 2000. Jessup:US Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

IESALC (2006). Informe sobre la Educación Superior en América Latina y el Caribe 2000-2005.Caracas: Metrópolis. <http://www.mineducacion.gov.co/cvn/1665/article-100800.html>[Looked up: 3 July 2008].

ISHITANI, T. (2006). «Studying attrition and degree completion behaviour among first-generationcollege students in the United States». The Journal of Higher Education, September-October.

JOHN, E. P.; CABRERA, A. F.; NORA, A.; ASKER, E. H. (2000). «Economic influences on persistencereconsidered». A: Braxton, J. M. [ed.]. Reworking the Student Departure Puzzle. Nashville (TN):Vanderbilt University.

KOLB, D. A. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experiencie As the Source of Learning andDevelopment. Prentice-Hall.

KUH, G. D. (2001-2002). «Organizational culture and student persistence: Prospects andpuzzles». Journal of College Student Retention, vol. 3, num. 1, p. 23-39.

LATIESA, M. (1992). La deserción universitaria. Madrid: Siglo XXI / CIS. (Monography Collection;124)

LONGDEN, B. (2001). Off Course - Renewed Interest in Retention But Whose Interest is BeingServed? Ponència presentada a la Higher Education Close Up Conference 2 (LancasterUniversity, 16-18 July 2001). <http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00001766.htm>.

LOTKOWSKI, V. A.; ROBBINS, S. B.; NOETH, R. J. (2004). The Role of Academic and Non-AcademicFactors in Improving College Retention. ACT Policy Report.<www.act.org/research/policymakers/pdf/college_retention.pdf> [Looked up: 3 July 2008].

MARTÍNEZ, P. (2001). Improving Student Retention and Achievement. What Do We Know andWhat Do We Need To Find Out? LSDA Reports. London: LSDA [online].

MIGUEL DÍAZ, M. DE; APODAKA, P.; ARIAS, J. M.; ESCUDERO, T.; RODRÍGUEZ, S.; VIDAL, J. (2005). «Towhat extent is higher education achievement conditioned by the secondary education model».Studies in Educational Evaluation, vol. 31, p. 57-78.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

> 143

MINISTERIO DE EDUCACIÓN, CIENCIA Y DEPORTE (2007). Estructura del sistema universitario españolsegún el EEES.<http://www.mepsyd.es/mecd/jsp/plantilla.jsp?id=3131&area=estadisticas&contenido=/estadisticas/educativas/cee/2007A/cee-2007A.html> [Looked up: 1 October 2008].

MORA, J. G. (1999). Indicadores en la Universidad, información y definiciones. Madrid: Centro dePublicaciones MEC.

NATIONAL AUDIT OFFICE (NAO) (2007). Staying the Course: The Retention of Students in HigherEducation. Informe realitzat pel Comptroller and Auditor General (HC 616, session 2006-2007).

OCDE (2007). Education at a Glance.<http://www.oecd.org/document/30/0,3343,en_2649_39263238_39251550_1_1_1_1,00.html>[Looked up: 1 May 2008].

OCDE (2008). Education at a Glance.<http://www.oecd.org/document/30/0,3343,en_2649_39263238_39251550_1_1_1_1,00.html>[Looked up: 1 September 2008].

OCDE (2008). Panorama de la educación 2008. Indicadores de la OCDE. Santillana: Madrid.

O’TOOLE, D. M.; STRATTON, L. S.; WETZEL, J. N. (2003). «A longitudinal analysis of the frequency ofpart-time enrollment and the persistence of students who enroll part time». Research in HigherEducation, vol. 44, num. 5, p. 519-537.

PASCARELLA, E. T.; TERENZINI, P. T. (1991). How College Affects Students. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

PASCARELLA, E. T.; TERENZINI, P. T. (2005). A third decade of research. Vol. 2 de How collegeaffects students. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

PIKE, G. R.; KUH, G. D. (2005). «First-and second-generation college students: a comparison oftheir engagement and intellectual development». The Journal of Higher Education, vol. 76, num.3 (May-June).

PORTER, S. R.; SWING, R. L. (2006). «Understanding how first-year seminars affect persistence».Research in Higher Education, vol. 47, num. 1, p. 89-109.

RAYOU, P. (2001). Entrer, étudier, réussir à l’université. Número monogràfic de Revue Françaisede Pédagogie, num. 136 (July/August/September).

RAURET, G.; GRIFOLL, J. (2001). Estrategias presentes y futuras para la captación y acogida deestudiantes universitarios. Actes de les ponències del seminari «La demanda y la captación deestudiantes en las universidades» (Barcelona, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, 16 February2001).

RODRÍGUEZ, S.; FITA, E.; TORRADO, M. (2004). «El rendimiento académico en la transiciónsecundaria-universidad». Revista de Educación, num. 334, p. 391-414.


144 <

RODRÍGUEZ MORENO, M. L. [coord.]; ÁLVAREZ, M.; FIGUERA, P.; RODRÍGUEZ ESPINAR, S. (2008). Delsestudis universitaris al món del treball. La construcció del projecte professional. Barcelona:Servei de Publicacions de la Universitat de Barcelona.

RODRÍGUEZ MORENO, M. L. (2002). Hacia una nueva orientación universitaria. Modelos integradosde acción tutorial, orientación curricular y construcción del proyecto profesional. Barcelona:Edicions Universitat de Barcelona.

RODRÍGUEZ ESPINAR, S. [coord.]; ÁLVAREZ GONZÁLEZ, M.; DORIO, I.; FIGUERA, P.; FITA, E.; FORNER, A.;HOMAR, J. M.; MAURI, T.; NOGUÉ, M.; TORRADO, M. (2005). Estratègies i recursos per a l'acciótutorial [format CD]. Referència: Manual de tutoria universitària. Recursos per a l'acció [CDinteractiu]. Barcelona: Ed. Octaedro / ICE UB.

RODRÍGUEZ ESPINAR, S. (2006). «La acción tutorial: su concepción y su práctica». A: La accióntutorial: su composición y su práctica. Madrid: MEC-Instituto Superior de Formación delProfesorado, p. 9-25.

SALVADOR, L.; GARCÍA-VALCÁRCEL, A. M. (1989). El rendimiento académico en la Universidad deCantabria: abandono y retraso en los estudios. Madrid: CIDE.

SEIDMAN, A. [ed.] (2005). College Student Retention: Formula for Student Success. Westport(CT): ACE/Praeger.

SOUTHERLAND, J. NATHANIEL (2006). Formulating a New Model of College Choice and Persistence.Address presented ASHE Annual Conference (3 November 2006).

SPADY, W. G. (1970). «Dropout from higher education: An interdisciplinary review and synthesis».Interchange, vol. 1, num. 1, p. 64-85.

THE HIGHER EDUCATION INFORMATION SYSTEM (HIS). Germany. <http://www.his.de/> [Looked up: 1October 2008].

TINTO, V. (1975). «Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research».Review of Educational Research, vol. 45, num. 1, p. 89-125.

TINTO, V. (1997). «Classrooms as communities exploring the educational character of studentpersistence». Journal of Higher Education, vol. 68, num. 6, p. 599-623.

TINTO, V. (1990). «Principles of effective retention». Journal of the Freshman Year Experience, vol. 2, num. 1, p. 35-48.

TINTO , V. (2005). «Reflections on retention and persistence: Institucional actions on behalf ofstudent persistence». Studies in Learning, Evaluation, Innovation and Development, vol. 2, num.3, p. 89-97. <http://sleid.cqu.edu.au>.

TINTO , V.; Pusser, B. (2006). Moving from Theory to Action: Building a Model of InstitutionalAction for Student Success. Washington: NPEC (National Postsecondary EducationCooperative).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

> 145

TINTO, V. (2008). Creating Conditions for Student Success. Conferència a la University of MaineSystem (10 March 2008).

TRIADÓ, X. (2008). «El aprendizaje en Ciencias Sociales mediante el uso de casos audiovisuales.Instrumento de aprendizaje, motivación y mejora de la comprensión educativa». InnovaciónEducativa, num. 18, p. 213-222.

YORKE, M. (1998). «Non-completion of undergraduate study: some implications for policy inhigher education». Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, vol. 20, num. 2, p. 189-201.

YORKE, M. (1999). Leaving Early. Undergraduate Non-completion Higher Education. London:Flamer Press.

YORKE, M.; LONGDEN, B. (2004). Retention and Student Success in Higher Education.Maidenhead (United Kingdom): Open University Press.

Yorke, M.; Longden, B. (2007). The First-Year Experience in Higher Education in the UK. Reporton the first phase of project founded by the Higher Education Academy.<www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/york/documents/ourwork/research/fye/web0573_the_first_year_experience.pdf>.

VAN STOLK, R.; TIESSEN, J.; CLIFT, J.; LEVITT, R. (2007). Student Retention in Higher Education.International Comparison. Cambridge: Rand Europe. (Technical Report)

Webliography:

National Resource Center on Student Retention and Student in Transition. North Carolina.<http://www.sc.edu/fye/events/sit/index.html>.

Center for the Study of College Student Retention (CSCSR). <http://www.cscsr.org/>.

> 147

Information on basic personal aspects:

1. ID: 2. Gender: a Male b Female

3. Age: years 4. Are you currently working? a Yes b No

5. Are you currently studying? a Yes b No

5.a. Are they university studies? a Yes b No

5.b. Which degree?

5.c. At which university?

Information on academic aspects:

6. Degree you were studying:

7. University where you were doing your studies:

8. Academic year when you entered the university:

a 2002-2003

b 2003-2004

c 2004-2005

d 2005-2006

e 2006-2007

9. Academic year when you dropped-out of the university:

a 2002-2003

b 2003-2004

c 2004-2005

d 2005-2006

e 2006-2007

10. How old where you when you dropped out your studies?

11. Number of years that you studied at the university before you dropped out:

12. Was it a voluntary drop out or you were expelled by the system (permanence regulations):

a Voluntary b Expulsion

Appendix 1: SURVEY TO EVALUATETHE UNIVERSITY STUDENTS WHO

DROPPED OUT THEIR STUDIES


148 <

13. What semester were you in when you decided to drop out of your studies?:

a September-January b February-June

14. In what shift were you studying in?: a Mornings b Evenings

15. How did you carry out your studies?: a Full-time b Part-time

16. Through which access mode did you enter university?:

i Scientific-technological

ii Biosanitary

iii Social Sciences

iv Humanities and Linguistics

v Double option Scientific-technological-Biosanitary

vi Double option Social Sciences-Humanities and Linguistics

a A-level / GCE A-level

vii Scientific-technical

viii Health Sciences

ix Humanities

x Social Sciences

xi Arts

xii Double option Scientific-Technical- Health Sciences

xiii Double option Humanities-Social Sciences

b 25 years and older i Scientific-Technical

ii Health Sciences

iii Humanities

iv Social Sciences

v Arts

vi Double option Scientific-Technical-Health Sciences

(only in the case of retaking the academic data of previous years option CI [double option

Scientific-Technical-Health Sciencest])

vii Double option Humanities-Social Sciences

viii Double option Humanities-Arts

ix Double option Social Sciences-Arts

x Triple option Humanities-Social Sciences-Arts

c Vocational Education and Training

i Medium degree

ii Higher degree

d Others:

APPENDIX

> 149

17. University access grade:

18. Type of centre where you studied your last secondary school year:

a Public

b Private

c State-subsidized school

19. Average grade of the studies previous to university:

20. Preference order in the assigned degree:

a First option

b Second option

c Third option

d Fourth option

e Fifth option

f Sixth option

g Seventh option

h Eighth option

20.b. If you were not assigned your first or second option that you wanted, which were the

studies that you wanted to access?

21. Which two orientations did you give priority to choose this degree?

a Orientation received by the secondary school teachers

b Visit of a university teacher in the secondary school center

c Visit to education fairs

d Advice from people who have done these studies

e Friends

f Family environment: advice, family tradition...

g Higher Education guide

h Own initiative/ vocation

i Personal interest

j Others:

22. In which two criteria did was your degree choice based on?

a Access grade

b Degree duration

c Degree’s simplicity or difficulty

d Proximity to the family home

e Job expectations

f Job opportunities


150 <

g Family environment

h Prestigious degree

i Prestigious university

j Others:

23. What was the number of passed credits when you decided to drop out of your degree?

24. Which was your attendance rate when you decided to drop out your studies?

a -20%

b 20-50%

c 50-70%

d +70%

25. Which was your attendance tendency when you started your studies?

a Increasing

b Decreasing

c Constant

26. If you did not attend to some classes, which were the two main reasons?

a Timetable incompatibility with other subjects

b They vaguely contribute to my education

c The teachers did not explain correctly and I was bored in class

d I preferred spending my time in more interesting activities

e I had notes from previous years so I didn’t have to go to class

f I preferred going to the academies

g Others:

27. Which was the main motive/detonator that made you drop out of your studies?

a Timetable incompatibility

b Work reasons

c Family reasons

d Economic necessities

e New opportunities

f Lack of motivation

g Expectations were not accomplished

h Family burden

i Others:

APPENDIX

> 151

Information on satisfaction aspects:

Grade on a scale from 1 to 10 the following aspects related to your studies and the university in

general:

- + Dnk/Dna

28. The coursed subjects 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

29. The teachers task 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

30. The classes quality 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

31. The subject’s syllabus 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

32. The degree program 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

33. The academic tutorships 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

34. The library service 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

35. The cafeteria service 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

36. The transportation service 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

37. The reprography service 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

38. Available material and equipment in the classrooms 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

39. Available laboratories 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

40. Professional practices service 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

41. The study rooms service 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

42. The sport activities services 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


152 <

Information on economic aspects:

43. Which was your job situation while you where studying?

a I worked less than 15 weekly hours

b I worked 15 weekly hours or more

c I did not work

44. Did you work on something related to your studies? a Yes b No

45. Which was your parent’s employment?

1. Father 2. Mother

a. Business or public institution director or manager

b. Technician or university associated profession

c. Qualified worker

d. Non-qualified worker

e. Without a compensated employment

f. Unemployment

g. Other

46. With which finances did you count on to pay your studies?

a My parents paid for them

b I worked to be able to pay them

c I had a scholarship

Type of scholarship:

i Enrollment scholarship

ii Displacement scholarship

iii Residence scholarship

iv Material scholarship

APPENDIX

> 153

Information on personal aspects:

47. Which was your marital status when you dropped out of your studies?

a Single

b Married / lived with my partner

c Separated/divorced

d Widow

48. Which was your family situation when you dropped-out of your studies?

a Without kids

b Kids dependency

c Single parent situation

49. Which was your parent’s studies level?

1. Father 2. Mother

a. Without studies

b. Primary studies

c. Primary or first degree on VTE

d. A level or second degree on VTE

e. Graduate or technical engineer

f. Doctor, graduate, engineer or architect

50. How many weekly hours did you dedicate to your studies?

Grade on a scale from 1 to 10 how much do you agree with the following statements:

- + Dnk/Dna

51. I was motivated to finish my studies 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

52. I got deceived while I was studying and on seeing 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10the suject content (false expectations)

53. I thought/felt that I had to finish my studies 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

54. I felt responsible and implicated in my studies 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

55. I found the studies useful to find a later on job 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

56. I made new friends at university and felt integrated 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


154 <

Information on social aspects:

57. With who did you live with while you while you where studying at university?

a With your parents

b With flat mates in a property apartment

c With flat mates in a rent apartment

d Alone in a property apartment

e Alone in a rent apartment

f In the university campus

g Others:

58. How many kilometers were there between the place where you lived and the university?

Asses your agreement on the following aspects:

- + Dnk/Dna

59. I felt integrated in the university academic life 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

60. The information about the bureaucratic processes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10(functioning explanations, diverse information, etc)

61. My attendance in university social activities 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

62. Would you re-enter university to follow the studies that you dropped out of?

a Yes b No

63. Would you re-enter university to course other studies? a Yes b No

63.b. Which studies?

64. Would you be willing to participate in a research on university drop out? a Yes b No

65. Comments, suggestions and observations:

Thank you for your opinions and assessments.

Your answers will be treated with confidentiality.

> 155

Appendix 2: IN DEPTH INTERVIEWPROTOCOL

General data

University where you studied:

Faculty/center:

Course in which you dropped out of your studies:

Age Gender (M/W) Degree you where studying

Access way to university

A level (modality) 2nd degree 25 years and older VTE Others (specify)

Development

A. Which information and activities did you receive linked to the degree and university choicebefore registering yourself? How do you value them?

(From high school, family, university, friends, etc.)

B. Which orientation and tutorship actions where most useful when you incorporated intouniversity? Why?

(conference days, university visits to the high school, family day, campus visits, Education fairs, web pages,individualized sessions, tutorships with the families, informative brouchers, talks and informative sessions, receptionconferences, reception day, orientation conferences, student councilor, individual tutorship, propedeutical subjects,etc.)


156 <

C. Which of the aids that the university offers where more profitable to you while you wherestudying? Why?

(talks at the beginning of the course, knowledge on the subjects, student councilors, student’s guide, web page,reception conferences, orientation conferences, faculty assemblies, tutorships, students attention, degreecoordination, reception plan, etc.)

D. Why did you choose the degree and the university where you studied?

(geographical proximity, good reputation, friends and family references, for its services, for the job opportunities, forthe education environment, for the academic degrees, vocational, etc.)

E. Which where your expectations towards the university studies?

(typology, studies motivations, etc.)

F. Which were the main changes and difficulties that you found at university and that madeyou take the decision to drop out?

(the role of the teaching staff, the demand of works and studies, the role as a student, the control, the importanceof the evaluations, the methodological diversity, the autonomous work, the time distribution and the schedules, etc)

G. Which difficulties did you face when you where studying?

(program quality, lack of study time, evaluation ignorance, material excess, lack of study techniques, lack ofconcentration and motivation, studies and work combination, transportation, etc)

H. Is there other reasons, external to the university, that contributed to your studies dropout? Which ones?

(personal, social, economic issues etc.)

I. What kind of supports and institutional resources would you would of liked to have in orderto continue with your studies?

(conferences and reception plans, propedeutic subjects, computer services and library assistants, tutorships,scholarships, etc.)

APPENDIX

> 157

J. Which ideas would you contribute with to improve the education and learning process atuniversity to fight against the studies drop outs?

(time and schedule organization, more support and resources, other evaluation opportunities, study techniques,tutorships and personalized attention, rate reduction, etc.)

K. Under which conditions would you be able to re-enter the university studies?

(time flexibility, adequate methodology and evaluation, personalized attention, etc.)

Observations

Other issues you would like to comment on:

Via Laietana 28, 5th floor | 08003 Barcelona | Tel.: +34 93 268 89 50 | Fax: +34 93 268 89 51

www.aqu.cat

Date post:	26-Jun-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times

STUDENTSTUDENT DRDROP OUTSOP OUTS AT CAT … · 2019-03-14 · Library of Catalunya (Biblioteca de...

Documents